[Pkg-phototools-devel] Hugin & enblend plans, redux.

[Cyril Brulebois]

Plans below, reacting to Sebastian's mail first.

Sebastian Harl <sh at tokkee.org> (22/07/2008):
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 03:18:19PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > Upstream asks whether releasing enblend 3.1 “soon” might help. I'm
> > not sure we want to push a mostly untested enblend version so that
> > we can keep an hugin snapshot that even upstream people aren't
> > releasing yet (it's been now several couples of months since it's
> > being postponed).
> 
> This really does not sound like a good idea. It's still a couple of
> months until the release, so we would have some more time for testing
> but I'd still prefer to have fairly well tested versions in Lenny and
> wait for things to stabilize on the upstream side.

Agreed, that's what I meant when I wrote “I don't want to put pressure
on Sebastian's shoulders”. :)

> It's perfectly fine to have any package in backports.org given that
> the version is available in testing and there's a user base for the
> package.

Yeah, thanks to all for correcting me. It seems I overlooked (or
misremembered) backports requirements.

> Anyway, why would you want to keep hugin 0.6.x out of Lenny? Did I
> miss any important bug?

As pointed out on IRC, but let's state it so everyone can read about it:
the svn snapshot being available in unstable, one can't go back to 0.6.x
without reuploading it with an epoch. As far as I've seen, people aren't
really using this version anyway, they moved to using the Ubuntu package
(0.7.0 beta4, which is also ancient, now), or to building the package
from upstream sources, given how outdated the 0.6.x series is. That's
why I'm not very keen on sticking to this version.

> Imho, it would be a pity to not have it in Lenny.

Agreed.

> Anyway, I agree that making enblend 3.1 + hugin 0.7 available thru
> backports.org when they are tested and stable sounds like a good
> solution for this.

Agreed as well.


Remarks, plans:
---------------
 * The situation isn't as desperate as I first thought. :)
 * Given the bugreports we got since the hugin -1 upload, beside the
   --compression issue (missing feature of enblend 3.0), people seem to
   be quite happy for now. I've added Steve Cotton's patch so that the
   compression setting isn't taken into account.
 * Since it looks like no major problem occurred for regular use of
   hugin, I think it's OK to use a README.Debian (for the hugin binary
   package) to document the situation WRT enblend 3.0 vs 3.1, file
   attached.
 * If it turns out that we're able to ship enblend 3.1 in time for
   lenny, I guess that versioning the Depends won't be a big deal from a
   release team point of view, along with adjusting the README.Debian
   (probably by deleting it).
 * If not, users have documentation about backports.org, where they will
   be able to get enblend 3.1.
 * As noted on IRC, enblend CVS is currently broken for 64-bit archs.
   I'll keep you posted once it's fixed. Hopefully 3.1 will be out very
   soon, it looks like upstream is really moving towards releasing every
   piece of software.

That said, beta5 is on its way to incoming. Almost no modifications
since the previous snapshot I uploaded (mostly: an additional
translation, a translation guide, and generated Makefile since it's no
longer only an svn snapshot, but a generated tarball).

Oh, and many thanks for Andreas for his bug triaging! It's really
appreciated.

Mraw,
KiBi.
-------------- next part --------------
README for hugin:
-----------------

  * It is known that hugin now requires enblend 3.1 (or a CVS snapshot) but
    Debian still has 3.0 for now. Hopefully a new version might appear soon
    (upstream is in the process of releasing it).
  * Until then, the dependency on enblend isn't versioned, and the use of
    enblend's (new) --compression feature has been disabled. For references,
    see Debian bug reports #491227 and #491562.
  * Hugin might not be as fully functional as it could be with enblend 3.1,
    but the pkg-phototools maintainers did the best they could given the
    versions available before the freeze.
  * If it's not possible to get enblend 3.1 in shape for lenny, it'll
    probably be made available through stable backports (see backports.org).

 -- Cyril Brulebois <kibi at debian.org>, Sun, 27 Jul 2008 04:45:39 +0200
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-phototools-devel/attachments/20080727/ec02c4f1/attachment-0001.pgp