On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 12:08:26PM +0100, Florian Ernst wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 12:28:50AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Is there any reason to not simply drop libmusicbrainz-2.0, in favor of the
> > libmusicbrainz-2.1 package that *everything* else in the archive is using?

> Except for the (broken) dcd package, which still Build-Depends on
> libmusicbrainz2-dev. However, I already tried building this package
> with libmusicbrainz4-dev and all seemed to run fine, so this probably
> isn't an issue at all.

Well, dcd doesn't even pick up a binary dependency on musicbrainz, so I was
assuming that build-dep was completely spurious. :)

> > There currently seem to not be any python bindings for -2.1, but surely we
> > should just get updated bindings instead of keeping -2.0 around.  (And in
> > the process, hopefully dropping python2.1/python2.2 in favor of
> > python2.4...)

> In fact, this lack of python bindings was the reason for me to favor
> keeping libmusicbrainz-2.0 for now.
> On the other hand, upstream reintroduced those binding in their latest
> release (not yet packaged), so it looks like libmusicbrainz-2.0 won't
> be needed anymore at all in short time, and when packaging this new
> release surely older python version support should be dropped in favor
> of python2.4. Thus, dropping libmusicbrainz-2.0 would only hurt some
> users and only for short while.

> Still, right now I intended to stick to a minimal set of changes for
> an NMU, especially as long as I haven't recieved any feedback from the
> maintainer regarding the pending adoption...

It's my opinion that libmusicbrainz-2.0 is unreleasable whether or not you
do this NMU, because it's an obsolete version of the lib that should be
removed.  So I would definitely recommend that you focus on making python
bindings available for -2.1, rather than spending time NMUing -2.0.

Cheers,
-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]                                   http://www.debian.org/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to