Ubuntu
idjc package

[SRU] idjc for edgy-proposed

Bug #66475 reported by Lionel Le Folgoc
6
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
idjc (Ubuntu)
Won't Fix
Low
Unassigned

Bug Description

Requesting update for idjc in edgy.

Current 0.6.5-0ubuntu1 package doesn't build (see original description). That's a very little patch, and not much risks of regression.

Here is the patch:
diff -u idjc-0.6.5/debian/control idjc-0.6.5/debian/control
--- idjc-0.6.5/debian/control
+++ idjc-0.6.5/debian/control
@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
 Priority: optional
 Maintainer: Lionel Le Folgoc (mr_pouit) <email address hidden>
 XS-Python-Version: current
-Build-Depends: debhelper (>= 5.0.37.2), cdbs (>= 0.4.43), bzip2, python-all-dev (>= 2.3.5-11), python-central (>= 0.5), libjack0.100.0-dev, python-gtk2-dev, libvorbis-dev, libxine-dev, libsamplerate0-dev, libflac-dev, libshout3-dev, liblame-dev, libfaad2-dev
+Build-Depends: debhelper (>= 5.0.37.2), cdbs (>= 0.4.43), bzip2, python-all-dev (>= 2.3.5-11), python-central (>= 0.5), libjack0.100.0-dev, python-gtk2-dev, libvorbis-dev, libxine-dev, libsamplerate0-dev, libflac-dev, libshout3-dev
 Standards-Version: 3.7.2

 Package: idjc
diff -u idjc-0.6.5/debian/changelog idjc-0.6.5/debian/changelog
--- idjc-0.6.5/debian/changelog
+++ idjc-0.6.5/debian/changelog
@@ -1,3 +1,10 @@
+idjc (0.6.5-0ubuntu1.1) edgy-proposed; urgency=low
+
+ * Approved SRU proposal:
+ - debian/control: remove liblame-dev and libfaad2-dev Build-Depends. (Closes Malone #66475)
+
+ -- Lionel Le Folgoc (mr_pouit) <email address hidden> Sun, 3 Dec 2006 11:45:51 +0100
+
 idjc (0.6.5-0ubuntu1) edgy; urgency=low

   * Initial release.

See original description
Revision history for this message
Lionel Le Folgoc (mrpouit) wrote :

Remove multiverse dependencies.

Changed in idjc:
assignee: nobody → motureviewers
status: Unconfirmed → Confirmed
Revision history for this message
Adrien Cunin (adri2000) wrote : Re: [DEBDIFF] Dependency problem

You can also make two binary packages, such as idjc (universe) and idjc-mp4aac (multiverse).
Like gtkpod and gtkpod-aac.

Revision history for this message
Adrien Cunin (adri2000) wrote :

Sorry, they are two different source packages.
It's probably not possible to have two binary packages of a same source package in different components.

Lionel Le Folgoc (mrpouit)
Changed in idjc:
assignee: motureviewers → nobody
Revision history for this message
Lionel Le Folgoc (mrpouit) wrote :

Is this bug suitable for a SRU proposal, or should I ask for a backport from feisty instead ? (0.6.7b-0ubuntu1 doesn't have this issue)

Revision history for this message
StefanPotyra (sistpoty) wrote :

Hi,

hm... the patch isn't invasive, but idjc (binary) has never been published to edgy or prior.
Imo -backports would be a preferable target then.
However you could also argue, that it fixes a broken source package, which would at least to some extent qualify -updates. OTOH the source isn't really broken by itself, just the dependencies reside in the wrong section.

Not quite sure about this one, but I have a slight preference for -backports. Other opinions?

Cheers,
    Stefan.

Revision history for this message
Daniel T Chen (crimsun) wrote :

(With the exception of the changelog version in the debdiff being incorrect) The fix is straightforward enough to warrant an SRU proposal if Lionel feels motivated to create one.

Changed in idjc:
importance: Undecided → Low
Revision history for this message
Lionel Le Folgoc (mrpouit) wrote : Re: [edgy] MOTU SRU proposal
description: updated
description: updated
Revision history for this message
Lionel Le Folgoc (mrpouit) wrote :
description: updated
Revision history for this message
Lionel Le Folgoc (mrpouit) wrote :

I updated the description and attached a new patch. If that's still OK, I'll ask a MOTU to upload it.

Revision history for this message
StefanPotyra (sistpoty) wrote :

+1

Revision history for this message
Daniel T Chen (crimsun) wrote :

Looks good, +1.

Revision history for this message
Reinhard Tartler (siretart) wrote :

+1

Revision history for this message
StefanPotyra (sistpoty) wrote :

is this one uploaded yet? If so, please subscribe ubuntu-archive. Thanks.

Revision history for this message
Lionel Le Folgoc (mrpouit) wrote :

Yes it is uploaded since 2006-12-07 13:20:05 CET, but hasn't shown up yet. Subscribing ubuntu-archive as requested.

Revision history for this message
Tollef Fog Heen (tfheen) wrote :

Accepted into edgy-proposed, please solicit testing per https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/SRU

Changed in idjc:
status: Confirmed → Fix Committed
Revision history for this message
Jérôme Guelfucci (jerome-guelfucci-deactivatedaccount) wrote :

Any news on this ?

Changed in idjc:
status: Fix Committed → Incomplete
Revision history for this message
Martin Pitt (pitti) wrote :

Nobody tested the -proposed upload and gave feedback here for more than 10 months, and I guess nobody cares about edgy universe any more, so I removed the edgy-proposed package.

Changed in idjc:
status: Incomplete → Won't Fix
To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  
Everyone can see this information.
Subscribing...

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.