Re: Does libgpod have a (pro)active maintainer in Core?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, 2006-11-20 at 17:58 +0100, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-11-20 at 08:48 -0900, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> > On 11/19/06, Alexander Larsson <alexl@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > I've recently (last week or so) been given the maintainership of a bunch
> > > of packages, including libgpod. I'm always overloaded with work, but I
> > > will try to take a look at these problems. Of course, I have never even
> > > looked at these packages before, so I could use help as much as
> > > possible. :)
> > 
> > There are multiple people who have spun up out-of-tree updates of
> > libgpod now. it should be enough to read through the comments on the
> > bugs I referenced previously.  One of the bugs I reference, should
> > even has a spec to roll the new 0.4 version, producing the python
> > bindings as a subpackage in Core  without requiring the python-eye3d
> > from extras. There is community work being done to address this, but
> > like I said, there has been a lack of comment from maintainerside
> > through bugzilla so far, so I was concerned that there was a
> > maintainership breakdown and this was falling through the cracks.
> > 
> > At the very least you should talk to the maintainer for listen in
> > Extras for coordination if an update gets pushed.  It really doesn't
> > matter where the python bindings live, Core or Extras, but libgpod
> > needs to be updated to atleast 0.3.2 in fc6 if not 0.4 to make the
> > bindings buildable inside Fedora-space.
> 
> Ok. I'm not sure what removing the python-eye3d support does, but just
> removing stuff souds scary, so I will spin an update for FC5/FC6 without
> the python bindings. Then we can add python bindings in extras for FC6. 
> 
> For FC7 maybe we can enable the python bindings when the mythical
> core/extras merger happens.
> 
> Sounds ok?

Ugh. I saw in a comment to bug 211648 that 0.4.0 is not ABI compatible.
That makes the whole thing a lot hairier.

Is upgrading to 0.3.2 good enough for FC5/FC6?

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 Alexander Larsson                                            Red Hat, Inc 
                   alexl@xxxxxxxxxx    alla@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
He's a suave misogynist grifter from the 'hood. She's a manipulative 
extravagent lawyer with the power to see death. They fight crime! 

--
Fedora-maintainers mailing list
Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers

--
Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list
Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Development]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux