[Lame-dev] New lame upstream release?

[Andres Mejia]

2011/7/27 Reinhard Tartler <siretart at tauware.de>:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 19:48:05 (CEST), Rogério Brito wrote:
>
>> Dear people,
>>
>> I'm in the middle of a power outage right now, using the last few
>> drops of energy of notebook battery and a 3G connection, so I will be
>> brief. (Oh, please keep in the CC'ies to me).
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 14:41, Andres Mejia <mcitadel at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Jul 26, 2011 12:49 PM, "robert" <Robert.Hegemann at gmx.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Rogério.
>>>>
>>>> Am 26.07.2011, 16:24 Uhr, schrieb Rogério Brito <rbrito at ime.usp.br>:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> We're just waiting for a new release of lame with all the license
>>>>>> clarification changes before uploading lame to Debian. :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think that we will be able to release anything in time for
>>> DebConf,
>>>>> as LAME is just beginning to get into the beta stage.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What time frame are we talking about?
>>>>
>>>> From my point of view, there may be some small patches to apply
>>>> and then release 3.99:
>>>>
>>>> 1 - pending LGPL patch
>>>> 2 - eventually changing default behaviour for ID3v2 unicode tags.
>>>>
>>>> What do the others think?
>>
>> Robert, it seems that Andres just adopted the suggestion that I gave
>> him of backporting some changes. Regarding a new release, I think that
>> we may need to include one extra thing in our TODO list. See below.
>
> Andres, may I suggest that instead of placing patches inline in
> debian/lame-get-orig-source.sh, we create an 'upstream-dfsg' branch, do
> modifications there directly and roll tarballs from that?

I suppose this can be done, though once all licensing related problems
are resolved upstream, there would be little use for this branch. I
created the script to be (hopefully) a one time fix for the last
stable release of lame.

>>> I was simply going to backport the lgpl patches and upload the last release.
>>> I suppose there's no need to wait for a new release now.
>>
>> Andres, I just saw that LAME was rejected by the FTP masters:
>>
>>     http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-multimedia-maintainers/2011-July/020498.html
>>
>> That part is only used if we use lame's internal IO routines. Just rip
>> that apart and link with libsndfile and we're done. Please reupload
>> that...
>
> Unforunately, this won't work easily because frontend/main.c uses
> functions from portableio.h unconditionally. We'd therefore need some
> more patches. Anyone familiar with the codebase and willing to
> contribute that patch?
>
>> I am motivated enough to get LAME into Debian that I am *seriously*
>> planning to rewrite that portion of the code for the next stable
>> release, implementing just the bare minimum that is needed for LAME to
>> work (and, of course, not reproducing Erik Castro's work with
>> sndfile).
>>
>> Most of the functions in portableio.[ch] are quite trivial, anyway...
>> You can tell that I *badly* want LAME in Debian, can't you?
>> (Especially now that it seems that the FTP masters are convinced that
>> such software is Free Software).
>>
>> Oh, hint, hint for the multimedia maintainers: what about uploading my
>> already packaged mp3packer from my launchpad PPA? [0]
>>
>> [0]: https://launchpad.net/~rbrito/+archive/ppa/+files/mp3packer_1.20-1~ubuntu1.dsc
>>
>> OK, the battery of my laptop is running out... :-(
>
> Doesn't the package lack a dependency on lame? AFAIUI it is a tool to
> reencode .mp3 files. I persume that it uses lame for that, but the
> documentatin isn't entirely clear on that.
>
> --
> Gruesse/greetings,
> Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4
>



-- 
Regards,
Andres Mejia