[pkg-fso-maint] New phoneuid snapshot?

[Jonas Smedegaard]

On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 06:04:22PM +0200, Sebastian Reichel wrote:
>On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 02:52:02PM +0300, Timo Jyrinki wrote:
>> 2010/6/1 Sebastian Reichel <elektranox at gmail.com>:
>> > About the dependencies: phoneuid sits on top, so I will have to 
>> > update all SHR packages ;)
>>
>> Would be possible to someone to fix and fill in what I just started 
>> on the wiki:
>>
>> http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/DebianFSO#FSO.2B-SHRstack

The wiki page has changed since then.  Historical page is at 
http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/DebianFSO?action=recall&rev=60



>I like the idea of creating a dependency graph :) Yours is not
>completly correct, though.

I suspect that you are referring to the graphical graph, which I added 
inspired by above post.


>1. Zhone does not belong to Phone systems, it's a UI application
>   using the phone system.

Ah, yes, I remember this pointed out earlier on this list.  I'll correct 
that.


>2. shr-frameworkd does not exist, but fso-frameworkd uses
>   python-phoneutils in opimd

As I have tried to clarify several places, the graph only reflects 
packages in Debian Sid.  I fail to locate opimd in sid.

Yes, shr-frameworkd is a package name invented by me.  I made it dotted 
for that reason.  The reason I added it was that I would expect a future 
package providing SHR to be named something similar to that - and 
provide the virtual package frameworkd currently provided only by 
fso-frameworkd and apparently unused anywhere currently.


>3. Your graph is missing SHR stuff, I can add them after the
>   other things are fixed. libframeworkd-glib and libphone-utils
>   will be connected to them.

I would prefer if you instead worked on adding the packages to Sid :-)

Seriously, I fear that a graph tracking both officially pacakged and 
not-yet-in-Debian packages will become too complex to maintain, and 
also would confuse users unable to locate those documented packages.


>4. About fso-frameworkd, it actually provides an alternative
>   implementation of fso-usaged, fso-deviced and fso-gsmd

Ok.  Those three packages together?  Are they equal competitors, or 
are one or the other deprecated?


>5. I think nodm, xserver-xorg-video-glamo & vala-terminal should
>   go into another package list, since they are not connected
>   to FSO at all

What the graph documents is dependency relations between runtime 
packages maintained by the FSO team.

I can easily delete those packages from the graph.  I would prefer, 
however, that some metapackage would connect them to the graph, which 
would then also help users IMHO.


>6. intone has a link to the framework, since it automatically
>   pauses audio when you are called

That should be fixed in package dependencies, then.  Currently intone to 
not depend on the framework.


>Another note: In the FSO2 stack there will no longer be "config
>alternatives" packages. The libfsoframework used by all FSO2
>daemons to load their configuration checks /proc/cpuinfo and
>loads the correct files shipped with the daemon.

Current graph documents reality (officially in Debian Sid).  I recommend 
to document expected future separately.


  - 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-fso-maint/attachments/20100602/5b7d1ff2/attachment.pgp>