-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
"KA6MAL" == Kamal Mostafa <kamal@debian.org> writes:
KA6MAL> Hi Maitland-
KA6MAL> Thanks for packaging freedv/fdmdv2 for Debian!
KA6MAL> http://packages.qa.debian.org/f/fdmdv2.html
Thanks. There is also http://files.freedv.org/debian/
KA6MAL> Just FYI... In response to user requests, I have put together an Ubuntu
KA6MAL> PPA for freedv and its prerequisites:
KA6MAL> https://launchpad.net/~kamalmostafa/+archive/freedv
KA6MAL> And we're also shipping those packages in the Ubuntu Hams Updates stable
KA6MAL> backports PPA:
KA6MAL> https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-hams-updates/+archive/ppa
So the first issue is that freedv.org is not yet a place for
Ubuntu saucy and trusty versions. That could be fixed soon.
The second issue is that you are duplicating the Precise packages
from freedv.org. Are they equivalent?
KA6MAL> So I'm curious about your plans for the Debian package. How about
KA6MAL> promoting it from 'experimental' to 'unstable'?
'experimental' is currently the best choice because the upstream developers
insist that FreeDV is an experimental activity. They wish to keep the freedom
to switch in non-interoperable bits at any time to try new ideas.
Bruce Perens, realizing that not every radio operator wants to build their own
FreeDV form source (especially scattered between subversion repository and
various other upstream tarballs), rallied a few of us packaging folk to provide
binary packages via freedv.org in time for announcements at last year's
Dayton Hamvention.
Last August a new incompatible mode was added, and the FreeDV.org site got
updated to reflect that change.
My upload to unstable was to improve the quality control by ensuring that
the source is DFSG free and builds on more architectures. There is a
"get-orig-source" in my package's debian/rules file that documents what
is necessary to purge non-free bits. The build is pretty good:
https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=fdmdv2&suite=experimental
I wrote on http://files.freedv.org/debian/
"The plan is to use experimental for pre 1.0 versions. Once a stable,
feature-complete, robust and supportable release of FreeDV and fdmdv2
is made, then that version will be allowed to transition to the next
release of Debian."
So my reason for not uploading to 'unstable' is that 'unstable'
transitions to testing, and testing transitions to release, and it
is not yet clear that the current state of FreeDV is what we want
to maintain for the lifetime of a Debian release.
Thanks for asking, Kamal. And thank you for including debian-hams
in on this discussion. I'd like to hear from Bruce and other
debian-hams, since there is a case to be made for uploading
fdmdv2 to unstable and testing, and possibly wheezy-backports.
73 de aa4hs,
- -Maitland
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.9 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>
iEYEARECAAYFAlL33fcACgkQkwbJvNrxBUz6gACeON4rC4UNtypEukVrggFg5pc8
URMAmQH9OKz8dGKHbfmUKkMsC4mBbTu7
=odDp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----