[pkg-fso-maint] [Debian] Device-agnostic fso-frameworkd: ready to go!

Joachim Breitner nomeata at debian.org
Mon Nov 3 08:46:19 UTC 2008


Hi,

Am Montag, den 03.11.2008, 01:13 +0100 schrieb Luca Capello:
> > 1) which fso-config-* package should be the default?  IIRC merely
> >    depending on the virtual package means that at installation time
> >    apt-get/aptitude/$WHATEVER chooses the first random package that
> >    provides the virtual one.  IMHO this is even worse than the current
> >    situation :-(
> 
> I have never tried, but I think that we are already in this apt-get
> situation: what happens when install-recommends is on and apt-get wants
> to install a virtual package?  fso-frameworkd recommends both the
> fso-config and fso-sounds virtual packages.
> 
> However, I still think that fso-frameworkd should not depend on the
> fso-config virtual package: this helps a lot people who want to fully
> customize their Debian, becuase they are not obliged to install any
> fso-config-* nor fso-sounds-* package.

I think you can use
Depends: fso-config-general | fso-config
which means „Any fso-config has to be installed, and if none is, use
fso-config-gereral“

> > 2) what should be put into that package?  The generic frameworkd.conf
> >    file?  In this case the package would be useless, [...]
> 
> While I think we all agree that a whole package for a single file is too
> much, at the same time the situation is a bit different: in the end I do
> not think that fso-config-general will ship more than one file, but this
> is perfectly fine for a metapackage ;-)

Agreed


> >>> I'd like to upload the new fso-frameworkd package as soon as possible
> >>> (at most this week-end), because I want to move on adding Ogg support
> >>> and then fixing every pkg-fso packages to upload to main.
> >>
> >> Note that milestone4 is expected this or the next week, so don’t worry
> >> too much about backporting.
> >
> > Frankly speaking, there are still 23 active tickets [c]: 10 in ogsmd, 1
> > blocker, 2 criticals [d] and various majors.  I need anyway to wait for
> > the Yue sounds [e][f], but as soon as these sounds are available, I will
> > backport the Ogg support.
> 
> FYI Yue sounds are now ready and I will start working on the package in
> this week.

Nice!

> We must take two decisions: should we add an fso-config-general (or
> whatever other name) package?  And once that decision taken, should we
> release the device-agnostic fso-frameworkd as it is or should we wait
> for the 'frameworkd-rules' tool?
> 
> My vote goes for releasing, since then we will be able to focus on
> uploading to main and spot any problem before the packages reach main.

Sounds good to me. I didn’t follow the update rules issue closely, so I
follow your vote.

Greetings,
Joachim
-- 
Joachim "nomeata" Breitner
Debian Developer
  nomeata at debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C
  JID: nomeata at joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-fso-maint/attachments/20081103/130fcdfb/attachment.pgp 


More information about the pkg-fso-maint mailing list