GNU bug report logs - #28398
Xfburn

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: ludo <at> gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)
To: "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup <at> gmx.net>
Cc: 28398 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, ng0 <at> n0.is
Subject: [bug#28398] Xfburn
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2017 15:13:21 +0100

Hi Thomas,

"Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup <at> gmx.net> skribis:

> ng0 wrote:
>> I've applied your suggestions
>> and the ones Christopher had a while back in this new version
>> of the patches.
>
> The inappropriate word "mastering" is still in one of the two description
> texts in the libburn patch
>
>> +    (synopsis "Library for reading and writing optical discs")
>> +    (description
>> +     "Libburn is a library for reading, mastering and writing optical discs.
>
>
> (It is also still in the description of the current Debian package. But
>  that's only due to the long release cycle. The next Debian package will
>  state what is committed by
>    https://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/pkg-libburnia/trunk/libburn/debian/control?r1=428&r2=430
> )

For the record, for GNU packages we stick to the GNU description as
maintained in the Womb and ‘guix lint’ makes sure we do:

  http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/*checkout*/womb/gnumaint/pkgblurbs.txt

However in this case our Xorriso description seems to differ.  Are you
OK with the one in pkgblurbs.txt above?  If not, can you provide a
suggestion?

> GNU xorriso versus libisoburn's xorriso:
>
> The only known application of libisofs' ACL capabilities is xorriso. It can
> record ACLs as part of backups and restore them back to disk. Operating
> systems are supposed to ignore the ACL info when mounting and reading
> libisofs made filesystems.
>
> Guix currently packages GNU xorriso, which brings own source copies of
> libburn, libisofs, libisoburn, and libjte.
>
> When libburn and libisofs are established as Guix packages and the decision
> is made that Debian's Jigdo ISO download mechanism is not desired, one should
> consider to package libisoburn and to install its dynamically linked xorriso
> binary.

Indeed, we should do that.

> Reason for the existence of GNU xorriso is mainly that it can be compiled
> and installed by a normal user without interfering with system-wide installed
> libburn and libisofs. This provides freedom from distro decisions and delays.

As package maintainers our choice is to *not* use bundled software in
such cases, though.  Is it the only difference between the two xorrisos?

Thanks for your feedback, it’s useful guidance!

Ludo’.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.