Moving xine-lib and dependent apps to RPM Fusion Free for F17?

[Michael J Gruber]

Do you top-post on rpmfusion-developers? I'm sorry if I messed that up,
I'm not on that list and don't know the policy.

We were talking about restructuring the xine packages, and xine-ui was
supposed to be subsumed by another package if I remember correctly.

Do we move first than repackage?

In that case we would need an rpmfusion maintainer for xine-ui, or I
would need to become one. If someone wants to jump in - by all means go
for it. Otherwise I hope that rpmfusion maintainership doesn't differ
too much from fedora maintainership in terms of tools etc. I won't be
able to before mid August, though.

Michael

Xavier Bachelot venit, vidit, dixit 10.07.2013 12:34:
> On 07/10/2013 11:57 AM, Michael J Gruber wrote:
>> Xavier Bachelot venit, vidit, dixit 10.07.2013 10:58:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 01/05/2012 08:56 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>>> The following packages currently depend on xine-lib:
>>>> * gxine
>>>> * (k9copy – already in RPM Fusion, not affected)
>>>> * kaffeine (my package, the reason why I maintain xine-lib in the first place)
>>>> * oxine
>>>> * xine-plugin
>>>> * xine-ui
>>>> These packages would have to move to RPM Fusion along with xine-lib.
>>>
>>> Fwiw, I've rebuilt all the above packages (but k9copy, not tested yet)
>>> against the xine-lib 1.2.3 rpm I prepared and all the builds succeeded.
>>> No runtime tests yet.
>>>
>>> Would all the impacted maintainers be ok to move their package to RPM
>>> Fusion, alongside with xine-lib 1.2 ?
>>
>> Yes, more than happy.
> great.
> 
>> I assume that packages such as xine-ui would be
>> subsumed in other packages then?
> I'm not sure to understand what you mean here, but each package would be 
> retired from Fedora and a corresponding package be created in RPM 
> Fusion. The RPM Fusion maintainer can be the same person as the former 
> Fedora maintainer, as a sponsored Fedora packager is entitled to be an 
> RPM Fusion packager automatically. Indeed, if the Fedora packager 
> doesn't want to keep maintaining his package in RPM Fusion, another 
> maintainer will have to be found or else the package would have to 
> unfortunately be retired, if no one steps up.
> 
>> I'd pass over maintainership to the
>> corresponding superpackage maintainer then.
>>
>> Michael
>>
> Regards,
> Xavier
>