Yet again: Current package status updated
belegdol at gmail.com
Sun Oct 12 12:20:22 CEST 2008
Orcan Ogetbil pisze:
> --- On Tue, 10/7/08, Orcan Ogetbil <orcanbahri at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> From: Orcan Ogetbil <orcanbahri at yahoo.com>
>> Subject: Re: Yet again: Current package status updated
>> To: "RPM Fusion developers discussion list" <rpmfusion-developers at lists.rpmfusion.org>
>> Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2008, 7:13 PM
>> --- On Tue, 10/7/08, Xavier Lamien
>> <laxathom at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>>> From: Xavier Lamien <laxathom at fedoraproject.org>
>>> Subject: Re: Yet again: Current package status updated
>>> To: orcanbahri at yahoo.com, "RPM Fusion developers
>> discussion list"
>> <rpmfusion-developers at lists.rpmfusion.org>
>>> Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2008, 6:56 PM
>>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 12:47 AM, Orcan Ogetbil
>>> <orcanbahri at 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?
> 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.
As I told, there is an active fork of mupen64 called mupen64plus. Not
that I'm interested in it, but just in case someone wants to pick it up
I'd like to indicate that patching up the dead mupen is pretty much
More information about the rpmfusion-developers