fluid vs. iiwu [was: Re: [PD-dev] compiling individual debs]

[Frank Barknecht]

Hallo,
guenter geiger hat gesagt: // guenter geiger wrote:

> Ah, I know, the FLUISYNTH path is the problem. I think it would be better
> to use
> 
> FLUIDLIB=-L/usr/local/lib  -lfluidsynth
> instead of
> FLUIDLIB=/usr/local/lib/libfluidsynth.a

Yes, but it didn't work here, when I tried it this way. :( I have to
try again, with the libfluid Debian packages, and if it works, we can
change it.

> I have fixed that temporarily in the debian build system now.
> Another question is what to do with iiwu ?
> (Can we get rid of that, now that fluidsynth is in Debian)

I had a lenghty email discussion on this topic with Eric, the iiwu and
now fluid maintainer. His first fluidsynth-packages "Provide" iiwu,
"Replace" it and "Conflict" with it in the Debian sense.

I wrote to him, that I think that this is technically (and
practically) not correct, because there is no libiiwusynth.so in the
libfluidsynth package. OTOH Peter Hanappe and the fluid team will
probably not fix bugs in iiwu anymore, so Eric cannot have iiwu
available in the next Debian anymore (three years from now ;)

I don't know, what the current decision is, I proposed to keep the
"Replace: iiwu" but ditch the "Provide" and "Conflict" in the
fluidsynth packages with regard to iiwu, because fluid doesn't provide
iiwu and doesn't need to conflict with the iiwu package.

I didn't file a bug report, because this seems to be more a question
of policy, and I don't know, how the Debian policy handles renamed
packages.

In the end, (f)iiwu will vanish together with iiwusynth from Debian
and the Sourceforge-CVS and be replaced by fluidsynth and fluid~

ciao
-- 
 Frank Barknecht                               _ ______footils.org__