On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 06:35:06AM AEST, Felipe Sateler wrote: > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 4:07 PM, David Henningsson > <david.henningsson at canonical.com> wrote: > > > > > > On 2014-09-22 20:58, Felipe Sateler wrote: > >> > >> So, if I understand correctly, the current situation is the following: > >> > >> 1. oFono patches have been fully merged. > >> 2. Wim Taymans patches have not been merged yet (or at least not > >> completely) > >> 3. Even if Wim's patches are merged, we (debian) will have to choose > >> between oFono or native at compile time. > >> 4. Either patchset is not complete, in that one supports HSP and the other > >> HFP. > >> 5. In practice, the above is not terribly important, because most > >> devices support both. > >> 6. oFono requires manual configuration by the user. > >> > >> With the above understanding, I'm thinking that we could work around > >> problem 3 by building pulseaudio twice and shipping the relevant > >> modules in separate conflicting packages. Not sure if that would be > >> too confusing for users. > > > > > > I have had the same thought (shipping one pulseaudio-module-bluetooth and > > one pulseaudio-module-bluetooth-ofono) for Ubuntu, maybe we can collaborate > > on the packaging? > > I'd be more than happy. It appears that the packages have diverged > quite a bit, so we need to work something out (but perhaps that is OT > for this list?). > > Our current packaging is maintained in git[1]. We use the regular > git-buildpackage workflow. I'm not finding where the equivalent > repository is for Ubuntu (does one exist?). > > [1] http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-pulseaudio/pulseaudio.git We currently keep our packaging in bzr, but perhaps we should do what is done for many other packages in Ubuntu, and keep our packaging in a branch in the Debian git repo. I believe David is a member of pkg-pulse, and I am also. We'd lose history, but that is a small price to pay for easy cherry-picking of patches between the distros. I'd be happy to help get this sorted. Luke
