Ladish

[Jonas Smedegaard]

On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 12:49:58PM +0100, rosea.grammostola wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I see that Laditools and Ladish are packaged for Debian. Great work, 
>thanks.
>
>What are we going to support? Apps who has official added a patch for 
>Ladi (Rosegarden)? Apps which there are patches for, but are not 
>supported officially (Ardour)?
>
>My feeling is that it is not wise to support a Ladi patch in an 
>application which is not officially supported by that package. So I 
>would package Ardour for Debian without Ladi patch.
>
>What do you think?

How about for unofficial patches provide an "overlay flavor package" 
with the patch applied.

Example: ardour+ladish

It would be compiled from the ardour source package as a separate binary 
package, depending on the main ardour package and containing only the 
derived files - assuming that no conffiles derive, only the main binary 
and perhaps some additional data files.

Then later we can either drop it if it turns out to me not maintainable, 
or we can have the main package take it over (by simply Provides: 
ardour+ladish until after next stable distro release) if the patch gets 
adopted by upstream or we decide to no longer want to respect upstream 
ignorance of ladish.

I do *not* mean to say that ladish is the only true way forward!  On the 
contrary my proposal is to best possible both envourage ladish while 
leaving open alternatives.  I.e. not spit in the face of those upstreams 
working hard in alternative directions.


  - Jonas

-- 
  * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
  * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

  [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-multimedia-maintainers/attachments/20110127/85a6575d/attachment-0001.pgp>