----- Forwarded message from Greg Troxel <gdt%ir.bbn.com@localhost> -----
X-Original-To: jfranz%bsdprojects.net@localhost
From: Greg Troxel <gdt%ir.bbn.com@localhost>
To: William Pitcock <nenolod%atheme.org@localhost>
Cc: jfranz%bsdprojects.net@localhost
Subject: Re: pkgsrc: wip/{audacious,audacious-plugins}
X-Hashcash:
1:20:070919:nenolod%atheme.org@localhost::DruOhu2LI+7qU5P7:00000000000000000000000000000000000000000002yqk
X-Hashcash:
1:20:070919:jfranz%bsdprojects.net@localhost::L3wjsIyuND2DnN/r:0000000000000000000000000000000000000003rE6
Audacious is indeed free software.
glad to hear it.
Why wouldn't it be?
some programs aren't - in pkgsrc-land I try not to make assumptions
(commentary on how we could make this more "obvious" would especially
be good)
1. add first question to faq: under what license is Audacious. I
searched faq for license and didn't see it.
2. add a new page 'about', and have a 3-paragraph blurb that says what
it does and what the license is. perhaps make this be the main page.
These releases aren't meant to be packaged, so I don't understand the
argument here. The release announcement says "if you want to play with
alpha-quality software, try this, but don't use this in production".
Well, it comes down to it being useful to have it packaged to enable
people to test, and I see "you really shoudl use stable instead" and
"this should be in a package" as orthogonal. And I like hygiene in
numbering at all times.
No, DR releases are the same as alpha. We use the DR name in order to
scare end users away from testing because we're not ready for that. As
I said above, the purpose of these DR releases is only to provide a
reference implementation for third-party authors to update their code
to. As components of the API become finalised, we make a release.
I would just call them alpha, but whatever. Presumably it's useful to
have people test them as well - just people who could be useful at
testing.
However, stabilization will indeed occur soon, and those will be
"beta" releases followed by some RCs like usual.
-plugins is seperately maintained once stabilization begins, which is
very soon now.
Somewhere on the web page it would be nice to explain the plan for how
plugins and base interoperate. Still, most of my plugin comments were
directed at packaging.
Honestly, the only thing which probably should be said about history
is "Audacious is an in-progress rewrite of BMP classic."
sounds fine to me - I am in favor of taking such text from upstream. If
you do the about page I suggested, and I were packaging this, I'd just
cut and paste what you wrote.
The only codec that is questionable is TTA (the license of the SDK we
include says non-commercial use only). IANAL though, there may be
others.
So how do you distribute the combined work under the GPL? Or is it only
a plugin?
Thanks for explaining things.
----- End forwarded message -----
--
--
http://users.bsdprojects.net/~jfranz/
Attachment:
pgp9Ang3AuxFZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________ pkgsrc-wip-review mailing list pkgsrc-wip-review%lists.sourceforge.net@localhost https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pkgsrc-wip-review