audacity-nonfree, normalize: ? maintainership ?

[David Timms]

Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 19:31:47 +1000, David Timms wrote:
> 
>> Michael / All,
>>
>> With regard to audacity-nonfree and normalize, I don't wish to step on 
>> anyones toes. You are definitely welcome to assume primary ownership of 
>> both of them if that is your intent. I sure the person who has spent a 
>> lot of time understanding the software, tracking bugs, etc is going to 
>> have a much easier and more effective task to maintain them.
>>
>> Can you let me know ?
> 
> Well, Audacity is also in Fedora. It has been sort of upstream for the
> Livna package. Except that the Livna package ships two releases in one pkg
> to escape from stagnation. It's unclear how long that will be necessary.
> Theoretically, the pkg could return to be slightly modified Fedora pkg.

> More comaintainers (also testers!) for the Fedora pkg would be helpful.
I'll request watchcommits, comaintain in fedora. I use it a bit, and 
have been trying more recently to record from two sound cards 
simultaneously, so when I saw that lack of maintainer for rpmfusion 
thought I would put up my hand. Only had a short look at the code a few 
years back to consider it as a basis for something I was tinkering with.
My first impression of the -nonfreee package was that it had just the 
non-fedora allowed bits, but I see it conflicts/replaced f version. 
Seems to be a package that can't dynamically open the 'non-free' bits if 
they are present ?

> So
> far we are two who usually try to agree on whether to upgrade to just
> another beta release which [once again] bears the risk of breaking
> features in many ways (such as would have been the case with the previous
> two beta releases). If Fedora still offered only the more than two years
> old stable 1.2.x release, that would be different from other popular
> distributions. Users would not understand that. On the contrary, if recent
> 1.3.x-beta releases are offered, some of the Fedora users with real
> interest in Audacity still go and build their own binaries instead of
> testing the Fedora rpms.

With Fedora we have a update-testing repo. This might be against policy 
for Fedora: Could we build always the latest version and expect to have 
it there long term, until a new Beta release or enough feedback says the 
package is 'good' or at least better than the last updates package.

I don't remember seeing any similar -testing repo for livna, rpmfusion 
{other than devel, which I expect is for use with fedora-rawhide}, have 
I missed that ?
Is there a different level of QA here, where the package doesn't get 
released at all unless we are really sure it's good to go ?

> And "normalize", it's a simple package. It could be passed on to
> any beginner packager with a bit of interest in a review and the
> software. Interest in old XMMS could be beneficial.
I'm fairly beginner'ish myself {just glglobe in fedora, but working on 
others}. But perhaps it would be worthwhile leaving it to be an easy way 
in for new packagers ?

DaveT.