Re: Yet again: Current package status updated
--- On Tue, 10/7/08, Orcan Ogetbil <orcanbahri(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Orcan Ogetbil <orcanbahri(a)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Yet again: Current package status updated
To: "RPM Fusion developers discussion list"
<rpmfusion-developers(a)lists.rpmfusion.org>
Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2008, 7:13 PM
--- On Tue, 10/7/08, Xavier Lamien
<laxathom(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> From: Xavier Lamien <laxathom(a)fedoraproject.org>
> Subject: Re: Yet again: Current package status updated
> To: orcanbahri(a)yahoo.com, "RPM Fusion developers
discussion list"
<rpmfusion-developers(a)lists.rpmfusion.org>
> Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2008, 6:56 PM
> On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 12:47 AM, Orcan Ogetbil
> <orcanbahri(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> orphaned | KmPg2 | Not found in free-devel
> >> orphaned | KmPg2 | Not found in free-F-8
> >> orphaned | KmPg2 | Not found in free-F-9
> >> orphaned | mamory | Not found in free-devel
> >> orphaned | mamory | Not found in free-F-8
> >> orphaned | mamory | Not found in free-F-9
> >> orphaned | mupen64 | Not found in free-devel
> >> orphaned | mupen64 | Not found in free-F-8
> >> orphaned | mupen64 | Not found in free-F-9
> >> -> Anyone interested?
> >>
> >
> > I can take these over if there's demand.
>
> If you really want to take them over, please go on
and ask
> for CVS request.
>
> --
> Xavier.t Lamien
> --
Interested? Yes for KmPg2 and mupen64. Not that much for
mamory but like I said I'll do it if there is demand.
Do they need to go through package review process in
bugzilla? Or else, where should the CVS request be filed?
-oget
I understand that the above message of mine might have brought some confusion although I
tried to explain my thoughts in a later message.
Let me clear up things once and for all.
First of all, as of now, I don't own these packages. They are still orphans.
2 of these projects (KmPg2 and mupen64) seem dead to me. No activity for more that 2
years.
- We already provide more recent mpeg encoding GUI software (e.g. avidemux) that has
more-or-less the same functions. KmPg2 will need patched to work with our ffmpeg. I
don't think keeping it is worth the trouble of hacking the code.
- I can support mupen64 but it's for i386 only. Thus I can't test the package
easily. Also I don't own any software to run on this emulator.
- About mamory: I, for one, am just not interest in it.
The only problem we will encounter is the mupen64 dependency of mythgame-emulators
package, which should be fixable (Don't we have mythgame-emulators for non-i386
systems? How do they work this out?).
My own thoughts point in the way that we should consider supporting these 3 packages only
if
- there is some package that we (will) want to support that depends on some of these 3
packages, or
- a packager really wants to keep some of them (that's not me), or
- the userbase requests it.
Until then -I think- we should put them on the shelf.
-oget