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

Bug#1051819: fluidsynth: Consider building with pipewire support



Hi Nicholas,

Quoting Nicholas D Steeves (2023-09-16 14:06:00)
> Oh my, yes, it seems I forgot to add the new pipewire -dev package to the
> fluidsynth -dev package.  'not sure how that happened, but my mistake!  Isn't
> only waiting 48h a bit rushed for an NMU though?

the number of delayed days are documented here:

https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.en.html#when-and-how-to-do-an-nmu

It seems that indeed a 0-day nmu was a bit too quick here.

> I can of course import your fix and upload in the next 48h, and I'd like to
> improve your changelog entry, because I think you'll agree that the concept
> of "runtime" doesn't make sense for headers ;)

It does make sense as we have two types of dependencies in Debian: build
dependencies and runtime dependencies. A header package is also a binary
package so it has runtime dependencies like all other binary packages do.

But indeed the term "runtime dependency" is not very widely used. I do not
think that Debian policy uses it. I think the term is mostly used by people
like me who work on dependency resolution software.

> If this is truly 0-day urgent, I'm confident a team member (IIRC Josch is a
> multimedia-team member) will upload.

I'm afraid it was already uploaded and is now in unstable. :(

> ('hope this isn't HTML email, since I'm currently AFK on a phone)

It was HTML but it also had a text/plain part. :)

Thanks!

cheers, josch

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: signature


Reply to: