On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 05:20:25PM +0400, Sergei Golovan wrote: > Hi Ron, > > On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Ron <r...@debian.org> wrote: > > > > I thought the plan was that we'd just depend on libsnack2 (or whatever) > > so that if you ever ended up adding tcl-snack-pulse (or whatever), then > > people could just choose whatever backend suited them best (which was > > the problem people originally had with -alsa). > > > > The rename of the snack packages doesn't bother me otherwise, but is > > there some reason that old plan really isn't the best plan anymore? > > In fact there's a change in plans. I've dropped the idea of separate packages > like tcl-snack-oss or tcl-snack-alsa or whatever. For now (and > hopefully forever) > there's only one tcl-snack which all other packages should depend on. It > in turn depends either on libsnack-alsa or libsnack-oss, whichever users > choose > individually. > > So, just make the wavesurfer package depend on tcl-snack, and I won't bother > you anymore with unnecessary changes.
Ah, I just looked at the new package contents, and I see what you've done. That makes sense. I guess my question then is does anything break with your new plan if we stick with the libsnack2 dep for just a bit longer? The reason for that, is right now the package is just a simple rebuild away from being able to be backported to squeeze or wheezy if anyone wants the newer version there or if we get some urgent fix that needs it to be updated. But with this change that would need a separate source package. I could depend on tcl-snack | libsnack2, but it's not clear to me how that would really be different to what we have now. Am I missing something that would make leaving the libsnack2 dep as is until squeeze and wheezy are no longer supported be a problem for your plans with tcl-snack? Thanks! Ron -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
