[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: RFS: museek+ -- daemon and clients for the Soulseek p2p network



Adam Cécile (Le_Vert) wrote:
> Christoph Haas wrote:
>   
>> On Saturday 16 September 2006 14:20, Adam Cécile (Le_Vert) wrote:
>>   
>>     
>>> Christoph Haas wrote:
>>>     
>>>       
>>>> On Saturday 16 September 2006 12:22, Adam Cécile (Le_Vert) wrote:
>>>>       
>>>>         
>>>>> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "museek+".
>>>>>         
>>>>>           
>>>> I don't know why but the upstream tarball I just downloaded from
>>>> http://puzzle.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/museek-plus/museek+-0.1.1
>>>> 1.tar.bz2 differs in several places from the orig.tar.gz that you
>>>> provide.
>>>>       
>>>>         
>>> I took one or two revision from svn that fixes license issues....
>>> Do you want me to apply them through dpatch ?
>>>     
>>>       
>> Yes please. Otherwise it's hard to understand what you patched and why. If 
>> you really need to package a CVS/SVN version instead of the upstream's 
>> last stable release then consider using an upstream version 
>> like "0.99.4+cvs20060813".
>>   
>>     
> I know how to deal with svn version but we did too much changes to
> consider current trunk as "stable".
> That's why I just apply three svn revision to the latest stable release :)
>   
>> The theory is that a user can get the upstream's tarball, apply Debian's 
>> diff.gz patch and get a working package. The diff.gz contains everything 
>> you have done. That user would be surprised if the diff.gz didn't work 
>> with the upstream version you specify.
>>   
>>     
> It's now done but I have a strange problem I didn't noticed before. The
> first time I build the package I get "missing target
> install-python-museek2.3". If I restart package building it works fine.
>
> James is having a look, I hope he will understand what it is. Could you
> check the package too ? It's still available at mentors, same link than
> before.
>
> Thanks !
>
>
>   
>>  Christoph
>>   
>>     
>
>
>   
It's now fixed :)



Reply to: