On Wed, 2006-03-01 at 11:17 -0500, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > I have no idea where upstream gnomebaker development is in terms of > transitioning to gst 0.10 so I can not answer as to whether gnomebaker > in extras-development can be successfully patched to use gst 0.10 > without loss of functionality. I think transitioning to gst 0.10 asap > would be more worthwhile for gnomebaker instead of working on gst08 > deployment in Extras if the currently available gst 0.10 in > core-development has the necessary plugin functionality. But since I > have not seen the maintainer of gnomebaker in Extras express interest > in trying to patch in a transition to gst 0.10, I haven't spent any > time on it. If he'd rather work out the gst08 dep issues instead of > figuring out how gnomebaker can be transitioned to use gst 0.10 via > some patches.. that's his decision. Porting gnomebaker over to gst 0.10, is going to be a fairly time consuming job (certainly more time than I've got right now). Luke's started it, but most likely it's not going to be completed before FC5 comes out. In response to Thorsten's early question an exceptions being made for automatically allowing FC packages to be imported into FE, I'd be for that. Considering how long gst-0.8 was in Core, what is the harm in having it in FE? /B -- Brian Pepple <bdpepple@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 810CC15E BD5E 6F9E 8688 E668 8F5B CBDE 326A E936 810C C15E
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
