On Sun, 2014-02-09 at 14:59 -0500, A. Maitland Bottoms wrote: > >>>>> "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? I should have been more clear. The packages we're shipping in the Ubuntu PPA are no-change rebuilds of your own fdmdv2 (0.96.5.1353-1) source package from Debian 'experimental'. Our policy for the Ubuntu Hams Updates PPA is that we only ship backports of source packages obtained from Debian or Ubuntu. The packages at http://files.freedv.org/debian/ are actually an older version (0.96.5.1328-1). Thanks Maitland! 73 de KA6MAL -Kamal > 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
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part