Debian maintainer for Picard wanted!

libmusicbrainz and libtunepimp and many of the requirements of Picard are in Debian, but Picard itself has not been packaged up for inclusion into Debian. I would love to find a volunteer to take on the task to package Picard into a .deb so we can get it into the Debian respositories. If you’d like to help, please post a comment!

Technorati Tags: ,

7 thoughts on “Debian maintainer for Picard wanted!”

  1. I’d love to help, i even started doing some basic work on the packages. But i have 2 big problems, lack of time and that i don’t have any installed debian unstable systems at the moment.

    The second one is easy to solve, it’s just a matter of installing one. First one is that i just don’t have the time. If someone wants to team up to make the packages let me know, i can sponsor the packages to the main archive.

  2. I’d like to help with this. My machine is running unstable and I’ve played with Debian packaging before, so I know at least some of the basics. My problem right now is lack of internet access. Hopefully I’ll get my DSL connection within a few weeks, but who knows…

  3. Oh wow, the current libtunepimp packaging is a mess and picard really needs a distutils setup script. Other than that, libtunepimp appears to build after a bit of tweaking and picard starts (with a few problems). this looks doable, but needs work.

  4. Yes, picard needs a distutil script — I think the Picard codebase also need some rearranging in order to cleanly put some of the Picard guts into a reuable module structure. My work on pimpmytunes already does this, and I want to restructure Picard into a simiar format so that modules can be shared between the two projects. So, I’ll attempt to do this after the upcoming Picard 0.5.2 release.

  5. I’m looking into tunepimp in case someone has to do an NMU. Not a lot of action going on:

    Once we deal with this our users can download the source and run it themselves. However, if we want to distribute it, the license needs to be cleared up. COPYING references the RPSL and GPL, but includes neither. It also does not explain what that means: whether some portions are under one license and some are under the other, or if the whole package is dual-licensed and we may choose. If there are parts that are only released under the RPSL, this is a problem. Some threads here:

    It doesn’t seem that any agreement was reached.

    and also:

    If there have been any other developments in this area and I could help by bringing this up again on -legal, I would be glad to. If the package needs to go in non-free I’ll leave that to someone else.

  6. Decklin:

    Picard is triple licensed under all of those licenses. I updated the COPYING file to make this clear and I included the full license text for each one.

    Thanks for pointing this out.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.