Re: Updating mbrola (again)

[Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost>]

adr <adr%sdf.org@localhost> writes:

> Mbrola is now in https://github.com/numediart/MBROLA and it's AGPL
> at version 3.3. I'm making new packages of mbrola, mbrolavox-*,
> &c. It's ok to push them in wip with the same names or you prefer
> I use name-git for example?

We don't have a documented hard norm about naming, but I would say that
if I were to try to write down existing practice I would say:

  Well-behaved upstreams have actual releases, and release frequently
  enough that it is ~never appropriate to guide users to other than
  releases.  That said, we are willing to work around upstreams that do
  not do this right.

  The use of -git as a suffix because uptream is hosted on github, or
  uses git, is not ok.

  When packaging a release, simply use the upstream name (perhaps lower
  cased if the program is lower case even if the package is upper).

  If packaging not a release, then use -snapshot or -devel.  I have a
  fairly strong preference for -snapshot because it describes the
  logical state, and because -devel is used in Linuxy packaging to mean
  "the headers and static libraries, that you need to compile something
  about this, that we left out of the normally-named package".  We of
  course don't mean that for snapshots, and in pkgsrc we don't split
  into usable-by-users-but-not-by-programs and
  actually-complete-the-package parts.

> Note that what you have in pkgsrc right now is a binary x86 package,
> so it's only available in i386 and amd64 through emulation. This
> new packages will make mbrola based voices usable by TTS synthesizers
> like festival in other archs.

Are you saying it is ready for hoisting to pkgsrc?  Running pkglint in
wip/mbrola I see some errors:

  ERROR: patches/patch-Misc_common.h:3: Each patch must be documented.
  WARN: COMMIT_MSG: Every work-in-progress package should have a COMMIT_MSG file.

and the patch adds a hunk which seems not necessary for pkgsrc (checking
if two endians are defined).  It doesn't seem to have been filed
upstream.  Yes, I realize that upstream seems not functional.  That's
not part of the "patches should be filed upstream and a Url included"
norm :-)

I don't see why this is using zip; there is a tar.gz available, and zip
is basically an accomodation for upstreams that use odd windows-inspired
formats.

So it looks like it could be ready pretty easily.

mbrolavox-en1 has a lot of pkglint output.  I didn't really look at
that.  It has a boutique non-Free license which needs adding.

It's not clear that it makes sense to split the voices in packages, but
I don't know how big it is.

This should probably be snapshot as there is no upstream release.  We
often use e.g. 20200330 as a faux version number for snapshots.

> By the way, Is tech-pkg more appropriate for this?

I would say pkgsrc-users is fine.  This discussion could go either way.
Maybe tech-pkg would have been slightly better.  Just don't include both!