On Thu, 2012-05-24 at 11:35 +0200, Brendan Jones wrote: > On 05/24/2012 11:13 AM, Jonathan Dieter wrote: > > On Thu, 2012-05-24 at 10:18 +0200, Brendan Jones wrote: > >> To cater for existing RPMFusion users, I can be clear in the changelog / > >> update notes that this Fedora package is replacing the one in qtractor > >> and they should install qtractor-freeworld if MP3 support is desired. > >> Sound OK? > > > > I don't have a strong opinion either way, but if I was implementing it, > > I'd follow the following steps: > > > > 1. Push qtractor-freeworld into RPM Fusion and have it obsolete > > qtractor > > 2. Finish getting qtractor reviewed in Fedora > > 3. A week or two after (1) happens (and *before* qtractor gets > > pushed to testing in Fedora), remove the obsoletes from > > qtractor-freeworld > > 4. Build qtractor in Fedora > > > > The advantage of this process is that most RPM Fusion qtractor users get > > qtractor-freeworld automatically (and the longer the obsoletes is left > > in, the more RPM Fusion users get qtractor-freeworld). > > > Sure - however we should still implement alternatives in the > qtractor-freeworld package right? > (btw review is approved in Fedora already - although I've pulled the > update for the moment) I'm afraid I know very little about alternatives, so I'm not in the position to give advice. If I understand what Nicolas is saying, alternatives make more sense than having two versions that conflict. Jonathan
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
