quite a few packages are still missing in the repos :-(

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

On 07.09.2008 09:46, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> On 03.09.2008 19:35, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>> Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>>> == packages with owners ==
>>> <snip>
>>> whoa those are not mine, they are all dribble packages which used to 
>>> be maintained by Ian Chapman, who is currently emigrating to 
>>> Australia, it would be good to keep them around as he may pick them up 
>>> again when he has go settled there, but in no way are they mine. With 
>>> that said I'll pickup pangzero, but the rest is not mine, nor do I 
>>> feel inclined to pick them up.
>> While at it: According to
>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/ContributorStatusNo
>> you are not participating in EPEL. So I suppose you don't have any 
>> interest in maintaining your RPM Fusion packages for the EL branch and 
>> thus all those owners.epel.list entries below are wrong? (And no, I 
>> didn't create those entrys
>> nor did I branch those packages)?
> Actually (I need to write a blog post about this and let the world) Sept
> 1st I've started working for RH on the installer team,

Congrats; hopefully you enjoy your new job.

> so I will be
> having and using RHEL on my machines from now on and thus I could try (I
> say try for time reasons) to maintain my packages for EPEL too, 

great.

> for now please continue importing them.  I think it would be good for me to still
> be in the loop for the gstreamer packages, gstreamer packages are nasty
> because newer upstream gstreamer-foo packages often require a newer base
> gstreamer then we have in Fedora / EPEL, this is for example why I have
> different gstreamer-foo versions in F-8 then in F-9 / devel.

Yeah, I wouldn't have simply build then; but for most of the packages I 
build up to now it's afaics just fine to ship the same versions as for 
Fedora.

> As for the owner ship, many of the listed packages are not much use on
> EPEL,

I agree and disagree at the same time.

Yeah, maybe some are of your packages are of not much use in the EL branch.

But I often hear from people that shipping games in EPEL doesn't make 
any sense. I disagree with that; I for example installed CentOS 5 on my 
girlfriends system  and she really really wants enigma or frozen-bubbles ;-)

> so they shouldn't be done on EPEL at all I think, shall we
> co-maintain the ones which are usefull?

I won't say a generic "yes" here, otherwise I'll quickly own or 
co-maintain a big bunch of EL packages from you or other maintainers 
quickly. My plan is to get the most important bits into the EL testing 
branch and then find owners or co-maintainer for the packages that need 
still one (like announced yesterday).

Cu
knurd