The libburn packages in Debian are severely outdated and back in June I tried to poke various people to see what was going on. Sean Harshburger is nowhere to be seen despite mails, bugs and so on dating back to August 2006 so I think can be called MIA. cdrskin has been actively maintained as a statically linked binary package and the most active contributor in Debian on this is George Danchev who is almost all the way through NM now just waiting on DAM. Eduard Bloch said he didn't really have enough time to do much with the packages back in June. George filed an RFH on cdrskin which is #450873 I've been looking at it periodically since I suggested that we just use the Ubuntu packages more or less as is. Since then upstream released 0.4.0 which broke the soname (shipped with libburn.so.0 after libburn.so.4) but SVN has fixed this (so that's what I packaged). Upstream also ship a Makefile.am that deliberately builds a static cdrskin that I don't quite get but anyway. I've created new packages for libburn and libisofs based on the Ubuntu ones but modified. As I said I've made cdrskin dynamically linked. I've kept Ubuntu's use of cdbs in the hope that we can standardise on the same packaging (or almost) in both distributions. If uploaded, they would replace the current cdrskin and libburn source packages in the archive and the cdrskin, libburn-1, libburn-dev, libisofs-1 and libisofs-dev binary packages. They are currently available at: http://the.earth.li/~huggie/libburn/ and at least cdskin works fine for me. It's entirely possible I did something stupid in which case send hot patches. I really do think Debian needs something like this for its libburn and cdrskin as the current situation is rather sad. I'm happy to sponsor them in for George to maintain and to continue to do so but I'd rather not maintain them long term. If no one objects I'll upload them in a week or two though I'd prefer someone who really wants to maintain them changes the maintainer and does so. If anyone has any better ideas, let me know though if it is "we've had lots of really good discussion about this and we've got a plan we're going to implement RSN" then I'm not that interested as I was told that in June. -- ,--huggie-at-earth-dot-li--------stuff-thing-stuff----------DF5CE2B4--. _| "JarJar Binks^W^WSupport for CRLF<->LF translation in the kernel |_ | must die." - Alexander Viro | `-------------------- http://www.earth.li/~huggie/ -------------------'
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature