On 2012-01-16 16:47:43 (+0100), Dimstar / Dominique Leuenberger
On Mon, 2012-01-16 at 16:40 +0100, Pavol Rusnak wrote:
On 01/02/2012 11:09 PM, Mariusz Fik wrote:
Also we need to ship runtime dependecies for apps in multimedia:app, because using this repo without multimedia:libs is not possible now.
Does the split between multimedia:apps and multimedia:libs still make sense? Obviously the apps are not usable without libs repo added as well, because they build against these packages. I would join both projects into one called "multimedia". Any comments on that?
Sounds sane to me, except one thing that needs to be made clear: Packages in multimedia:* should be handled with great care, for external repositories link to the sources there.
So the list of 'maintainers' should probably not grow to an unmaintainable long list of non-active users. Better keep it to a low number of active / versed reviewers.
Yes please, and thanks for bringing that up Dominique. Specifically and at the very least, Packman is linking about 25 packages from m:libs and m:apps. Actually, several packages have - either been moved from Packman to there, to make them available for other packages on build.o.o, especially when they don't have any patent crippling stuff in them or, when they do, build them without e.g. libmad but include the conditionals to build them with e.g. libmad support when linked in Packman - been created there without contacting any of us at Packman at all, and we had to play catch-up by replacing our packages with links to multimedia:* The latter is significantly annoying, because it causes issues for users and duplication of work. So please, pretty please, check first whether the package exists in Packman (either search in our OBS at https://pmbs.links2linux.org, or using our package web interface at http://packman.links2linux.org) and get in touch with us to coordinate (mail to packman@links2linux.org or poke us on #packman on freenode). We might be a bit slow to respond, because we are way too few people to handle so many packages (help is more than welcome), but we're doing our best. We don't mind moving packages to build.o.o when they are handled with great care (e.g. please stop renaming packages there like crazy, especially without the Provides and Obsoletes to handle released distributions in the field gracefully, has happened way too often) and we would very much welcome more packagers to get an account in our OBS instance to check whether their changes break stuff in Packman. And, even better, fix it in that case. Needless to remind everyone how important the Packman repository is for a very large percentage of the people who use openSUSE on their desktops. PS: I'm not whining, I'm not angry, but some very poor packaging in the multimedia:* repos has created an insane amount of work and issues for the very small team at Packman as well as for our users -- either the multimedia repository is handled with great care, or we will have no choice but to un-link everything and start duplicating work again, which is neither good for packagers nor for users cheers -- -o) Pascal Bleser /\\ http://opensuse.org -- we haz green _\_v http://fosdem.org -- we haz conf