SuperCollider package

[Dan S]

2010/10/20 Felipe Sateler <fsateler at debian.org>:
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 09:23, Dan S <danstowell+debmm at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2010/10/20 Felipe Sateler <fsateler at debian.org>:
>>> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 04:02, Dan S <danstowell+debmm at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 2010/10/19 Felipe Sateler <fsateler at debian.org>:
>>>>> On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 11:15, Dan S <danstowell+debmm at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 2010/10/9 Alexandre Quessy <alexandre at quessy.net>:
>>>>>>> Hello Felipe and the team,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2010/10/6 Felipe Sateler <fsateler at debian.org>:
>>>>>>>> On 09/21/2010 01:40 PM, Alexandre Quessy wrote:
>>>>>>>>> There are quite a few lintian warnings, but I tried the vim plugin and
>>>>>>>>> it works.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, quite a bit. The package needs a lot of work. First of all,
>>>>>>>> debian/copyright needs some serious overhaul. Are you familiar with the
>>>>>>>> codebase? If so, please take a look at that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No much familiar, no. Dan would know better than me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What sort of overhaul is needed? There are quite a few different
>>>>>> copyrights asserted, making it fairly bulky, but I don't spot any
>>>>>> wrongness.
>>>>>
>>>>> For starters, a whole lot of paths are wrong (they are missing the
>>>>> common/ subdir prefix). Hmm, maybe serious overhaul is an
>>>>> overstatement, but getting the right paths is a must, and made me
>>>>> doubt the overall quality of the file, perhaps indicative of neglect.
>>>>
>>>> Ah thankyou. Yes that is neglect but fairly recent neglect, we
>>>> reorganised the folder structure before 3.4 but it seems we forgot the
>>>> paths in the copyright folder.
>>>
>>> Great.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> OK I've fixed it now in svn.
>>>> <http://supercollider.svn.sf.net/viewvc/supercollider/packages/ubuntu/copyright?r1=10329&r2=10403>
>>>> Feel free to pull it in. (I'd like to help with the debian packaging
>>>> git - could I be given access or should I start my own git and send
>>>> pull requests?)
>>>
>>> No, join our team and then clone the ssh address of our repository.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Where did you get the packaging from? Upstream?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes. I took it from the upstream SVN repository. Dan has done one more
>>>>>>> - at least - after I took it, though. He might have removed some
>>>>>>> files. I specifically told him about some proprietary files that he
>>>>>>> removed. I'll double check this and let you know.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If Dan would tell us what he changed meanwhile, that would help. Dan?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I removed common/Source/lang/LangPrimSource/HID_Utilities/* since that
>>>>>> had an apple copyright with a dubious gpl compatibility, and (in the
>>>>>> svn packaging info) removed the apple entry from debian/copyrights as
>>>>>> a result.
>>>>>> (To be more accurate: We have a script that makes a pruned
>>>>>> linux-source .tar.gz, so what I did was to add the folder to the list
>>>>>> of what gets pruned out. The folder is still there in the upstream and
>>>>>> used on mac.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Where is this pruned linux-source tar.gz? Our repository seems to have
>>>>> the SuperCollider-3.4-Source-With-Extras-linux.tar.gz file from
>>>>> sourceforge with md5sum 20631117a7e9fb1c862833ce424ce9f4. Should we be
>>>>> using the without extras variant? Or maybe even another tarball?
>>>>
>>>> With-extras should be fine, however so far I've only tweaked the
>>>> not-with-extras one to remove the Apple files
>>>> (SuperCollider-3.4-rev2-Source-linux.tar.gz at
>>>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/supercollider/files/Source/3.4/ ).
>>>> We're hoping to get 3.4.1 released very soon so I'll include these
>>>> tweaks in that.
>>>
>>> What are the extras? The without extras tarball seems to be much smaller.
>>
>> Actually I think we should not include the extras for now, because
>> that could muddy the process.
>
> OK. So, if I understand correctly, we should use the -rev2 version
> without extras?

Yes.

>> The extras are essentially third-party
>> addons, two types of thing: plugins for the audio server, and add-ons
>> for the language. They're both GPL but the copyrights and other things
>> would be a bit awkward, and there are additional dependencies and
>> other stuff. (The extras are more loosely policed than the core.)
>
> Are they also released indepently of the core? If so, we could package
> it separately, which may simplify things.

Yes. Some of the extra plugins need the main sc source in order to
build, which is a bit of a pain, it's something we need to clean up
upstream before we come back downstream to package it.

Dan