Hi Mikael, Am Dienstag, den 18.01.2005, 20:47 +0100 schrieb Mikael Magnusson: > Kilian Krause wrote: > >I see this was uploaded to Debian mentors. Have they found it ok? Are > >there any plans to finally make this an official deb? > >If there's an open TODO list, what needs to be done and who of you is > >going to make this happen? > > > Hi, > > I haven't gotten much feedback, but I haven't asked for it on for > example debian-mentors either. well, alright, we can settle this ourselves too. It would just have been nice, but I'd say not hearing a scream of complaint is already a good and positive sign. ;) > The source and binary packages are almost lintian and linda clean, but > there are no manual pages for the binaries. There shouldn't be any > dependency problems, since I'm building the binary packages with pbuilder. Asking upstream to provide them might help. Or maybe trying to use help2man or just writing a minimal version yourself shouldn't be that difficult. I'd prefer to at least see a minimal manpage before deciding them ready for the archives, but maybe Jose thinks different and will bring his reasons here. > The current iaxclient source package on mentors produces three binary > package: > > 1. iaxclient iax clients: iaxcomm, iaxphone, testcall, tkphone > and wxiax > 2. libiaxclient0 shared library > 3. libiaxclient-dev development files > > I'm not sure that a shared library should be distributed, since upstream > haven't released any version yet and I'm using the cvs version, and the > library is under development. And maybe iaxclient shouldn't contain all > clients? iaxclient IMHO should be ok as one package. Yet doing testcall outside of examples/ might be a bit distracting. However it shouldn't be technically wrong if the upstream source do provide it as regular program for "make install". libiaxclient0 should stay in iaxclient at least until the API is settled and the release is official. Especially since the -dev is probably not used to build software against it (other than iaxclient), right? Using an libiaxclient0 with CVS API is a very tricky thing to do for you'd have to verify at EACH new package source, that the API is still the exact same. I haven't yet checked with the package, but when coming from CVS I somewhat expect that SONAME and version are broken or empty or somehow unusable for other reasons. For a library package that needs to be addresed first before it should go into Debian (if upstream breaks API then you can at least LART them about doing it without changing the SONAME *g*). > The upstream cvs version contains local versions of gsm, iax2, speex and > portaudio libraries. Currently I'm using gsm from Debian, the local iax2 > version, speex from Debian experimental, and my portaudio packages. portaudio isn't in Debian as far as i can see.. How can audacity use it if i don't get a single hit with apt-cache search? Using Debian's GSM and Speex should be ok probably. However asking upstream if that breaks anything is very probably not a bad thing (speex <1.0 has a different codec form than >=1.0 for example). Is there anything that keeps speex 1.1.3-1 from being uploaded to unstable? Have you asked the speex maintainer about when this will happen maybe? > There have been some discussion about the PortAudio license on the > Debian legal mailing list. PortAudio is already used by audacity, which > is in main, and the audacity maintainer thinks that it's DFSG free and > can stay there. Ok. If debian-legal would make that assumption be ofifcially accepted, that'd be even better. Is that discussion there still ongoing or already come to an end? > I will update iaxclient with the latest cvs, since it solves some sound > issues. Is there a stable release at sight we could use instead of poking around with CVS? If bugs are fixed upstream should also care about spitting them out as release, right? > I think it can be uploaded to experimental after the update, if you > think it's good. But it can't go into unstable, since it needs > libspeex-dev >= 1.1.3-1. I'll leave the final decision to Jose (at least until my DD status is gonna be installed). But let's keep the discussion going here to solve what's left of the problems. *g* > I sent an email to Norbert Tretkowski several months ago asking for the > status, but didn't get any answer. Maybe I should take over the ITP > (#261560)? I think the wnpp bug is clear enough about that both are interested. If Norbert has no time right now, he can still join the discussion or comment on the uploaded packages later as he finds the time. If not I don't have a problem with him being informed and letting us do our thing. -- Best regards, Kilian
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil