SuperCollider package

[Dan S]

2010/11/3 Felipe Sateler <fsateler at debian.org>:
> 2010/11/2 Dan S <danstowell+debmm at gmail.com>:
>> 2010/10/31 Felipe Sateler <fsateler at debian.org>:
>>> Артём, you are CCed because I don't know if you are subscribed to the list.
>>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 11:09, Dan S <danstowell+debmm at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 2010/10/6 Felipe Sateler <fsateler at debian.org>:
>>>> > Hi all, (Dan CCed because I'm not sure if you are subscribed to the list)
>>>> >
>>>> > I managed to take a few minutes to take a look at the package and it is
>>>> > not in a very good shape (it was still using simple-patchsys!). I have
>>>> > worked a bit on it, but it still has a long way to go. I will try to
>>>> > work on it during this week, I think I can find one hour or two.
>>>> >
>>>> > Dan, as you are part of upstream, could you comment on the patches
>>>> > included in the packaging? I can see they are in upstream svn ubuntu
>>>> > packaging module, with yourself as last commiter on most of them. They
>>>> > are older than the latest sc release, though.
>>>>
>>>> Hi - sorry for slow reply, I missed this thread. Most of the patches
>>>> are by other people but I will try to comment:
>>>>
>>>> 02_disable_elisp_compilation.diff
>>>>  - not sure I'm afraid, it's connected with the emacs sc3 mode, which
>>>> I don't use. Looks like it might disable something from running simply
>>>> because the build machine isn't the target machine.
>>>>
>>>> 03_fix_elisp_install_path.diff
>>>>  - another emacs mode thing, not sure.
>>>
>>> Does anyone use emacs and can comment on wether this should be applied
>>> upstream? The patch changes the elisp install path from
>>> /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp to /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/supercollider
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 06_deb_scvim.diff
>>>>  - build machine != target machine so don't error out if no ruby executable
>>>>
>>>> 07_deb_sced.diff
>>>>  - build machine != target machine so don't modify machine's mime database
>>>
>>> Dan, can you comment on whether these can be upstreamed? I don't see
>>> why they should be debian-specific.
>>
>> Right, that makes sense. I've had a look at the scons scripts and not
>> been able to integrate them in neatly (was hoping to add a nice option
>> for not-installing-here - if anyone has the scons chops to suggest
>> something then please do, I'd be grateful.)
>
> Can't do it, at least for the time being.

np. In the medium-term, upstream is moving from scons to cmake; the
build scripts will hopefully be less quirky!


>> FYI, supercollider 3.4.1 (bugfix release) has just been agreed, so is
>> likely to come out very very soon without any further upstreaming. I
>> hope that doesn't get in the way of debianising... would these patches
>> be considered blocking issues, do you think?
>
> I'm not quite sure what you mean. If you mean that the patches are not
> likely to be upstreamed before that, then it is no problem, we can
> continue with the patches.

Yes, that's what I meant, thanks. Just making sure I get the flow
right, don't miss out anything I should be doing.

Thanks
Dan