openni_1.5.4.0-6_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into unstable, unstable

[Hans-Christoph Steiner]

On 10/29/2013 10:46 AM, Jochen Sprickerhof wrote:
> * Hans-Christoph Steiner <hans at eds.org> [2013-10-29 10:10]:
>> My question is more the opposite: when do people use the plain version without
>> any of the avin2 patches?  I think we should call the current package
>> 'openni-sensor-avin2-sensorkinect', then leave it open for anyone to make the
>> 'openni-sensor-primesense' package that is the plain version direct from
>> PrimeSense without the avin2 patches.
> But avin2 is known to be Kinect only. We could name it willow or
> something (as they made the patches), but from my point the patches are
> not so big to rename the package. Just for comparison, Fedora ships the
> patched version as well ;).
>
> Cheers Jochen
Patches in a Debian package are not meant for adding new functionality.  They
are meant to get the code building/working/installing on Debian, and for
fixing security bugs.  So the package that includes those patches should be
named after the source of those patches.  Even better, that package should be
based off of that source's release.  Those patches are not in the referenced
git repo (https://github.com/PrimeSense/Sensor) and there is no description in
each patch to say where its from.  In the spirit of free software, people
should be able to find all of the original sources of a package.

Is there a source repo somewhere that includes those patches?  Then lets use
that and name the package after that.

Are any of them from the avin2 repo?

I think adding a USB ID to support other devices is an OK thing to do in a patch.

.hc