RFS: updated linuxtv-dvb-apps [Was: r7625 ...]

[Mark Purcell]

On Saturday 02 May 2009 06:33:52 Stéphane Glondu wrote:
> Tobias Grimm a écrit :
> >> Obviously, I will need a sponsor for this... and since it is now a
> >> dependency of mumudvb, I'm willing to have a closer look at the
> >> maintainance of this package. Is it fine if I add myself to Uploaders?
> >> if I add DM-Upload-Allowed?
> >
> > If Mark doesn't object, it's fine for me. You're welcome!

Thanks for the fix.  Happy to have more uploaders..

> Ok. Could someone sponsor the upload of current svn version? There are
> still several bugs to deal with, but this upload would fix a RC-bug
> (FTBFS, #525580) at least, so IMHO is worth an upload.

Great!

> > As there's no autoconf/automake involved, it should be as easy as adding
> > an appropriate -soname to the linker options. It might be harder to
> > convince upstream.
>
> Why so? Aren't they receptive to external contributions?

Definitely worth talking too..

[..]
> Is there anyone here against git? I don't intend to start a flame here,
> but I do know svn-buildpackage workflow and used it for some time, then
> switched to git and found it uncomparably more efficient. I would like
> to hear from other people who are actively working on linuxtv-dvb-apps
> packaging first.

I have done the bulk of recent work with dvb-apps and am not against git, but 
also haven't played around with git so I don't yet understand the workflow.  
I'm very comfortable with svn, which is where we are at.

It's not that i'm against it, but as I don't know how to use it, I'm hesitant 
to make wholesale change until I am comfortable.

> Unless someone objects, I am planning to migrate the svn history for
> linuxtv-dvb-apps to git, changing dpatch patches for quilt ones (as a
> serialized git branch). I might also at some point in the future switch
> from cdbs to debhelper 7's "dh" command since I find it easier to
> understand and debug, but it's not settled.

Please don't migrate to git yet as I mentioned I'm not yet comfortable.

I think there are also more important things we could do, such as packaging a 
proper library and as you say working with upstream for proper soname support. 
the range of lintian errors, warnings etc spring to mind.

I would also like to work with upstream on getting a proper release (beyone 
1.1.1) and in the shorter term pulling a more recent snapshot than rev1207 
into debian.

I also feel that quilt is overkill for two patches.  Indeed dpatch is probably 
overkill and we should be using something like simplpatchsys.

I do like the simplicity of cdbs as well as the wide adoption across Debian 
provides for good long term support.  So the simplicity of dh does appeal, 
however it maybe a little early and as I said I think there are better things 
we could do for dvb-apps support.

Mark
 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-vdr-dvb-devel/attachments/20090502/012aba36/attachment.pgp>