Request for review & inclusion: supercollider-sc3-plugins (see RFP #807364)

[Sebastian Ramacher]

Hi

On 2015-12-21 17:05:16, Hanno Zulla wrote:
> > W: supercollider-sc3-plugins-scsynth: binary-without-manpage
> > usr/bin/ladspalist
> >
> > If the package is providing plugins to supercollider, should this
> > binary really be on $PATH?
> 
> As discussed on IRC, it's unclear to me where to place this binary.
> 
> LADSPA plugins can be used through one of the supercollider sc3 ugen
> plugins provided by this package.
> 
> The binary only lists those LADSPA plugins available to the user.
> 
> I'm not sure where else to put it but in /usr/bin. Packaging it in a
> separate .deb seems like overkill. Please advise.

Let me repeat my question from IRC: what is the purpose of this binary? Will a
user ever run this binary directly or is it only run by plugins?

What is the difference between ladspalist and listplugins from ladspa-sdk? If
ladspalist is a better version of listplugins, why is ladspalist contained in
supercollider-sc3-plugins instead of ladspa-sdk?

> > Do the three packages suppercollider-sc3-plugins,
> > supercollider-sc3-plugins-scsynth and
> > supercollider-sc3-plugins-sclang work in
> > any version combination should the dependencies by versioned?
> 
> They should be versioned. Do I have to mention the explicit version
> number in debian/control or is there a placeholder for it?

Check out ${source:Version} and ${binary:Version}.

> > Never use an epoch unless you really have to. And you don't have to,
> > since this was never in the Debian archive.
> 
> I have removed the epoch for now, but do want to put it in:
> 
> The package was in an Ubuntu PPA where a different versioning had been
> used so far and I would want to override that. Also, Debian's
> supercollider already uses an epoch and the sc3 plugins follow
> supercollider's version scheme.

Epochs can be used to fix mistakes in the versioning of a package or revert to
an older upstream version or to switch to another upstream with a completely
different versioning scheme. Nothing of that seems to apply here.

As long as the version is greater than the version used in the Ubuntu PPA, there
should not be a problem. And some Ubuntu PPA is really no good reason to
introduce an epoch. We'd have epochs everywhere …

Cheers
-- 
Sebastian Ramacher
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-multimedia-maintainers/attachments/20151222/7d81ae40/attachment.sig>