Re: RFS: gem (updated package) [3rd try]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Barry deFreese wrote:
> Obviously the preferred method is to create an arch-indep doc package. But
> personally for such a small package I would sponsor even with that. (I can't
> speak for others though).
sorry to be so nagging, but either i get something wrong policy wise, or
my package seems to be uninteresting for any other potential sponsors.
at least that's the feeling i get from the (non-)replies at debian-mentors.
i interprete your email as if you were eventually willing to sponsor an
to the best of my knowledge, the package "gem" is now in a "clean" state
(no more lintian warnings; builds in a sid pbuilder environment)
is there anything more i can possibly do?
i don't want to become annoying to anybody, but i really want the
package to be updated in debian.
the same goes for the other package "puredata" which i uploaded to
"puredata" (along with SuperCollider (which seems to not be in debian
anymore) is probably the most important FLOSS realtime computer music
package use (at least if you go by references in "relevant" computer
music conferences - both academic and independent), so i guess it is
quite important (but of course this is my very subjective view) and
deserves (whatever that means) an update.
"gem" is probably the most well-known add-on to "puredata" allowing you
to do graphics in a realtime compositional context.
i'm wondering what would be the best way to keep it maintained in
debian. should i try and join the multimedia team?
should i try and nag the old maintainer (günter geiger) to sponsor the
i'm really at a loss (and don't want to step on somebodies shoes).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----