On 9/12/07, Bill Crawford <billcrawford1970@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 12/09/2007, Richi Plana <myfedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hans, how about this for an idea: re-write the > > gstreamer-plugins-bad.spec so that it puts the various plugins in > > separate packages and make gstreamer-plugins-bad a virtual package that > > Requires all of the plugins to pull them in? > > +2 -100 The discussion on how gstreamer's source codebase needs to be happening with gstreamer upstream. if gstreamer upstream continues to aggregate, splitting modules out one by one is guaranteed to be a fragile exercise of frustration. If it makes sense for the users of distributions to consume the modules as separate packages then it makes just as much sense for the gstreamer upstream to treat the modules as separate codebases so the entire gstreamer user/developer/tester base can consume them piecemeal as well. Everyone who wants to see more modularity, feel free to bring this desire up with the gstreamer upstream and make a reasoned argument to try to persuade them to change how they are packaging the modules. -jef"I'd love to consume gstreamer modules piecemeal for testing"spaleta -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
