<div dir="ltr">On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 2:59 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dominik@greysector.net" target="_blank">dominik@greysector.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi Richard,<br>
<div><div class="h5"><br>
On Tuesday, 06 August 2013 at 03:41, Richard Shaw wrote:<br>
> I don't think there's any reason mediainfo[1] can't go in Fedora, but I<br>
> figured the most likely user base would be here in RPM Fusion.<br>
><br>
> This has been a useful utility for me giving very detailed media<br>
> information and I'm considering submitting it for review anyway, but it<br>
> requires two other libraries that are not yet in Fedora and I've got enough<br>
> packages to take care of as it is.<br>
><br>
> That being said, if someone will help with the reviews and offer to<br>
> co-maintain, I'd consider submitting them for review.<br>
<br>
</div></div>I can review, but not co-maintain. (Un)fortunately, upstream provides<br>
their own RPMs, which are... odd. You'll need to come up with a set of<br>
Provides: and Obsoletes: and try to convince upstream to stop doing<br>
their own and point to official Fedora repositories instead once it<br>
passes review.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I was trying to decide if I would bother trying make the official packages conflict with theirs, I think it may be more of a case of caveat emptor. In the case of the libraries though, he appends a 0 to the package name. I'm not sure what problems that would create.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Richard </div></div></div></div>