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

Re: RFS: nuvolaplayer -- cloud music integration for Linux desktop

>> Done. I've added also optional header "Forwarded: Author of this patch
>> is the upstream author.", because the default value is "no". Is it right?
> I would suggest instead of Forwarded, you want Origin pointing at the
> web URL or commit info of the upstream VCS commits.

The patches are not yet in VCS, because they may change during reviews
and I don't want to do commits to patch patches.

>> Unfortunately, waf is the only build system I have experiences with
>> and there is no plan to replace it in a short term. Is it a blocker for Debian?
> I'm not really sure if it is a blocker, but I would definitely suggest
> replacing it. AFAICS, most things written in vala use autotools.

I think it is not a blocker, because some packages in Debian also use waf
(e.g. Nodejs). I will stay with waf for now, but porting to autotools has been
appended to TODO list. Thanks for the suggestion.

>> Did I understand this exception from "never modify orig.tar.gz" right?
>> Or should I remove them with patch instead?
> In general, as upstream you should never re-release the same version,
> just make a new version.
> A patch doesn't remove them from the orig.tar.gz (nor the upstream VCS
> history) if they are truly not redistributable.

OK. I will release new version. Can I use current ITP bug and just add comment
"new upstream release x.y.z"? I suppose debian/changelog should contain
only entry for the new release, because the 1.0 release has never reached Debian

>>> Lots of dpkg-shlibdeps warnings.
>> I don't know how to solve this issue. I use pkg-config to resolve dependencies,
>> but for example gdk-2.0 returns extra dependencies gmodule, pangocairo,
>> gdk_pixbuf, ... Library pthread is added by valac.
> Part of this is probably all the fault software you depend on.

I think the extra dependencies are not so big deal, because the libraries used
by Nuvola Player depends on them.

> BTW, I forgot to say that you should work on porting to GTK+ 3.

It's definitely on the TODO list for milestone 1.1 or 1.2. I had some issues
with older WebKitGTK3, I hope they have been fixed.



Reply to: