next, two small, weird-ish packages: puredata-import and pd-libdir

[Hans-Christoph Steiner]

On Tue, 2010-11-02 at 23:17 -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 01:01, Hans-Christoph Steiner <hans at at.or.at> wrote:
> >
> > On Oct 30, 2010, at 10:57 AM, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 21:23, Hans-Christoph Steiner <hans at at.or.at>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Oct 28, 2010, at 6:38 PM, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 01:28, Hans-Christoph Steiner <hans at at.or.at>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hey all,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So the plan for puredata-dev has been pushed off until Pure Data 0.43
> >>>>> is
> >>>>> released and packaged, so I think that the approach used in these two
> >>>>> packages is going to be necessary for the timebeing.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Can anyone upload these two?  They are needed as deps for the rest of
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> packages that I have ITP'ed.
> >>>>
> >>>> Why did you put the DMUA field before starting your DM application? I
> >>>> will upload them, although with the field removed until you get your
> >>>> DM status approved.
> >>>
> >>> I actually have started my DM application before debconf10.  The DebConf
> >>> people that I worked with said I should get someone who knows the stuff
> >>> that
> >>> I package to sponsor my DM application.  None of the debconf nyc
> >>> localteam
> >>> do any multimedia stuff.  So at this point, once I find someone willing
> >>> to
> >>> sponsor me, I can revive my DM application email and complete the
> >>> process.
> >>>
> >>> Sorry if I caused any trouble, I was just trying to make things go
> >>> smoother.
> >>
> >> It's not trouble, just standard practice to put the flag after the DM
> >> status is attained.
> >> Unfortunately, I cannot in good conscience advocate your DM
> >> application until I have further worked with you. Maybe after a few
> >> more package uploads ;).
> >
> > Perfect, I have about 10 that are ready to upload!  :-)
> >
> >
> >>>> And another question, why does puredata-import depends on puredata (<<
> >>>> 0.43)? I just uploaded pd-libdir for now.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for uploading pd-libdir!  puredata 0.43 has changed the way the
> >>> headers are installed, so pd libraries that rely on certain headers will
> >>> have to change once 0.43 hits the repos.  I think its important to get
> >>> this
> >>> stuff into Debian working with 0.42, and I'm willing to do the legwork of
> >>> packaging first for pd 0.42, then updating for 0.43.
> >>
> >> I understand the need for the build-depends, which is what I read from
> >> your description above (pd-libdir has the same restriction). However,
> >> puredata-import (the binary package) Depends on puredata << 0.43. Is
> >> that intended? If so, please explain why.
> >
> > Depends: puredata (< 0.43) is a mistake, I think, now that I look at it.
> >  I'll change it and push the changes once I get the chance.  But feel free
> > to make the change if you beat me to it.
> 
> Good, I see you fixed this.
> 
> >
> >> Also, while we are on it, why the naming scheme change? Shouldn't it
> >> be pd-import?
> >
> > So there are multiple flavors of 'pd' but only one is currently packaged
> > (puredata).  I am in the process of packaging the other major flavor,
> > Pd-extended as pdextended and that package will also provide 'pd'.
> >  Pd-extended/pdextended has "import" built-in, so it doesn't need the
> > "import" from the package.  Therefore puredata-import is targeted to only
> > 'puredata' not anything that that provides 'pd'.
> 
> I've added a description and removed an unnecesary note on debian/copyright.
> Please rephrase the description if it does not conform to pd-speak,
> and update the changelog. Then we can upload.

Your changes make sense to me, looks ready for uploading as far as I am
concerned.

.hc