pwlib/opal

[Eugen Dedu]

Mark,

Thanks a lot for your encouraging e-mail.  Also, for fixing the 
erroneous svn co line.

KK is very busy, I spoke to him about 6 months ago.  opal 3.3 & ptlib 
2.3 are not in debian probably because ekiga, the main application using 
them (maybe I am wrong here), has not released another major version for 
2 years (I think), so there was no need to update them.

For info, here are the points to check from my point of view:

- I called binaries libpt-2.3 etc. and libopal-3.3; however, the soname
are libpt.so.2.3-beta1 and libopal.so.3.3-beta1; I suppose this is ok
(developers have not answered for ABI changing, but as it is about a
beta, I suppose the ABI won't break (so much))

- the version is 0.svn2008MMDD-1 (like ffmpeg package), is it ok?

- dfsg should be added to opal name because of the removal of iLBC.  I 
fear that iLBC *sources* (not only the .so) should be removed, which is 
cumbersome.  I also need to add an info in README.Debian: "iLBC, H264, 
H263... codecs have been removed.", I'll do it this evening if you wish

- where the .svn directories should be removed in rules file: in
get-orig-source, in clean or in install/binary-common/... stuff?  ATM 
they are removed in get-orig-source, but removing in clean target for 
ex. should be cleaner IMO

- finally, don't forget to update to latest SVN right before uploading 
(I can check them right before), they are in bug fixes stage.  Anyway, I 
am building them almost each day.

Cheers,
Eugen

Mark Purcell wrote:
> Eugen,
> 
> I can understand your frustration.
> 
> I also understand you have put a lot of work into them, and that you are also maintaining the snapshots debs upstream so I do respect what you are doing and I'm also very glad you are doing it through the pkg-voip team.
> 
> However, I haven't been involved in the 30 hours, so don't know what you have done. It is too late for lenny, but I don't see why we can't get the packages uploaded to experimental/ sid very shortly.
> 
> I have started committing changes to the experimental branch too, which means I am starting to understand what you have done.  The opal checkout did need a little work, but it is good now.
> 
> I suppose I could upload now, but I wan't to ensure we are not going to make commits we can't later fixup, like version numbers.
> 
> I also am trying to understand why we don't have opal 3.2 & ptlib 2.2 in unstable as they are current upstream stable candidates, I guess the packages have been left behind without kk involvement.
> 
> I presume we are trying to get opal 3.3 & ptlib 2.3 into experimental so we can move things along, which I support, but still need to understand.
> 
> I would expect we will have these packages uploaded to unstable by the end of the week.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> On Wednesday 03 September 2008 05:04:18 Eugen Dedu wrote:
>> Dear Mark,
>>
>> I asked for these packages about 5 weeks ago, about 3 weeks ago I 
>> received an account and put the debian files (which have always worked), 
>> and now the future of these packages is still uncertain: will they ever 
>> be uploaded?  I do not need "one thought", I need to hear "Everything is 
>> fine now, I will upload it right now" or "Please do (1), (2) and (3) and 
>> I will upload it right after".
>>
>> Opal's get-orig-source should be ok, it's similar to ptlib's.
>>
>> ekiga has just gotten out the beta.  I feel like ptlib/opal upload will 
>> "miss the train".  Sincerly, I have not thought it will take SO much 
>> time for a package I really checked and maintain since months (I spent 
>> 30-50 full hours to create them).  I understand you are busy, it's 
>> normal to be busy, but I do not still see why so much time is needed: 
>> one hour or two is maybe sufficient to end this story; it's not about 
>> creating debian files from scratch, it's only checking that debian files 
>> which have worked for several months for me have flaws from debian point 
>> of view.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Eugen
>>
>> Mark Purcell wrote:
>>> Hi Eugen,
>>>
>>> Yes I have been playing around. I got pwlib built so that is good.
>>> The get-orig script checks out from svn, but just calls the package
>>> pwlib.orig.gz.
>>>
>>> One thought, perhaps we could save as pwlib-0+svn$(REV).orig.gz and
>>> then match package version, rather than current date based?
>>>
>>> Opal checkout failed, but i didn't look to close into the reasons. I
>>> think it fails it svn2cl script.
> 
>