Hi,
the current xine-lib maintainer speaking. :-)
The Xine project: http://www.xine-project.org/home has recently released a new major version, version 1.2.0.
Unfortunately, among the list of changes: http://sourceforge.net/projects/xine/files/xine-lib/1.2.0/README.txt.asc/vie... there are these new "features": * Use libavutil-provided implementations for CRC, SHA1 and BASE64 algorithms, this makes use of libavutil even outside the FFmpeg decoding plugin, but avoid duplication of algorithms between different plugins. * Use av_mallocz() when xine_xmalloc_aligned() wouldn't be needed. * FFmpeg is now required as an external dependency; if you want to build xine-lib from source, please download a copy of FFmpeg from their SVN server. which basically mean that xine-lib now has a global, non-optional dependency on FFmpeg's libavutil library.
So there are 4 possible ways forward: (a) Stick with 1.1.x forever. I don't think that's a good idea in the long run, upstream won't be providing security fixes for the old branch forever. (b) Package libavutil (and only libavutil) from FFmpeg in Fedora. (I don't think libavutil, as opposed to libavcodec, is actually patent-encumbered, though that'd also have to be checked.) The issue there is that FFmpeg upstream obviously doesn't support this. It would need some more black packaging magic of the kind already done in xine-lib, and more legal auditing. I don't think I want to investigate going down that road. (c) Bundle parts or all of libavutil with xine-lib. Yuck!!! (d) Move the whole thing (back) to RPM Fusion (where it originally was, before we started needing xine-lib for Amarok and Phonon, which both no longer use it). It would go to the Free section, of course. My proposal is to go with (d).
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.
In Kaffeine's case, upstream is switching from xine-lib to MPlayer in their git repository, so it will likely have to move to RPM Fusion sooner or later anyway. This means the affected packages are basically *xine*.
So my plan is to retire (for my packages, resp. have the respective maintainer retire) the listed packages in Fedora for Fedora ≥ 17 and get (or have the respective maintainer get) them into RPM Fusion Free instead. (I'd take care of xine-lib and kaffeine myself, I hope the maintainers of the other packages will take care of them.)
Comments? Objections?
Kevin Kofler
Kevin Kofler venit, vidit, dixit 05.01.2012 20:56:
Hi,
the current xine-lib maintainer speaking. :-)
The Xine project: http://www.xine-project.org/home has recently released a new major version, version 1.2.0.
Unfortunately, among the list of changes: http://sourceforge.net/projects/xine/files/xine-lib/1.2.0/README.txt.asc/vie... there are these new "features":
- Use libavutil-provided implementations for CRC, SHA1 and BASE64 algorithms, this makes use of libavutil even outside the FFmpeg decoding plugin, but avoid duplication of algorithms between different plugins.
- Use av_mallocz() when xine_xmalloc_aligned() wouldn't be needed.
- FFmpeg is now required as an external dependency; if you want to build xine-lib from source, please download a copy of FFmpeg from their SVN server.
which basically mean that xine-lib now has a global, non-optional dependency on FFmpeg's libavutil library.
So there are 4 possible ways forward: (a) Stick with 1.1.x forever. I don't think that's a good idea in the long run, upstream won't be providing security fixes for the old branch forever. (b) Package libavutil (and only libavutil) from FFmpeg in Fedora. (I don't think libavutil, as opposed to libavcodec, is actually patent-encumbered, though that'd also have to be checked.) The issue there is that FFmpeg upstream obviously doesn't support this. It would need some more black packaging magic of the kind already done in xine-lib, and more legal auditing. I don't think I want to investigate going down that road. (c) Bundle parts or all of libavutil with xine-lib. Yuck!!! (d) Move the whole thing (back) to RPM Fusion (where it originally was, before we started needing xine-lib for Amarok and Phonon, which both no longer use it). It would go to the Free section, of course. My proposal is to go with (d).
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.
In Kaffeine's case, upstream is switching from xine-lib to MPlayer in their git repository, so it will likely have to move to RPM Fusion sooner or later anyway. This means the affected packages are basically *xine*.
So my plan is to retire (for my packages, resp. have the respective maintainer retire) the listed packages in Fedora for Fedora ≥ 17 and get (or have the respective maintainer get) them into RPM Fusion Free instead. (I'd take care of xine-lib and kaffeine myself, I hope the maintainers of the other packages will take care of them.)
Comments? Objections?
[xine-ui maintainer speaking] No objection, d is clearly the best option.
I don't know anything about rpmfusion packaging and infrastructure, so I'd be happy if someone picks up xine-ui there. In fact, xine-ui gets most xine related abrt reports, it seems, and I always found it difficult to decide whether those are really xine-ui or xine-lib issues. So, xine-ui would best be put into the xine-lib maintainer's hands anyways ;)
Michael
On Thursday 05 January 2012, Michael J Gruber wrote:
I don't know anything about rpmfusion packaging and infrastructure, so I'd be happy if someone picks up xine-ui there. In fact, xine-ui gets most xine related abrt reports, it seems, and I always found it difficult to decide whether those are really xine-ui or xine-lib issues. So, xine-ui would best be put into the xine-lib maintainer's hands anyways ;)
Well, to be honest, I'd be glad if xine-lib also got a new maintainer. (Xavier? :-) ) As I wrote, I only really maintain xine-lib because of Kaffeine, and I'll stop caring about xine-lib the day Kaffeine releases its MPlayer-based code (or something else not based on xine-lib). In particular, I also really don't want to maintain xine-ui…
Note that xine-lib-extras-freeworld can be merged back into xine-lib when it moves to RPM Fusion, and the new xine-lib can Obsolete/Provide it. That'll allow making the packaging a bit less of a wicked mess than it is now.
Kevin Kofler
On 01/05/2012 09:13 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
On Thursday 05 January 2012, Michael J Gruber wrote:
I don't know anything about rpmfusion packaging and infrastructure, so I'd be happy if someone picks up xine-ui there. In fact, xine-ui gets most xine related abrt reports, it seems, and I always found it difficult to decide whether those are really xine-ui or xine-lib issues. So, xine-ui would best be put into the xine-lib maintainer's hands anyways ;)
Well, to be honest, I'd be glad if xine-lib also got a new maintainer. (Xavier? :-) ) As I wrote, I only really maintain xine-lib because of Kaffeine, and I'll stop caring about xine-lib the day Kaffeine releases its MPlayer-based code (or something else not based on xine-lib). In particular, I also really don't want to maintain xine-ui…
I can help with xine-lib and xine-ui in RPM Fusion, but I'm not sure I'll be a good primary maintainer for them. I'm more of a package monkey than a developper. Anyway, for some reason, I still value xine-lib and I'd hate to see it go away, so I'll take it if nobody else step up to the plate. I also use xine-ui, and I could take care of it too, but I have the feeling it doesn't receive much upstream love...
Note that xine-lib-extras-freeworld can be merged back into xine-lib when it moves to RPM Fusion, and the new xine-lib can Obsolete/Provide it. That'll allow making the packaging a bit less of a wicked mess than it is now.
I'm sure having only one package for all the xine-lib bits will ease the life of the both the package and the repos maintainers.
Regards, Xavier
Hi Kevin,
On 01/05/2012 08:56 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
In Kaffeine's case, upstream is switching from xine-lib to MPlayer in their git repository, so it will likely have to move to RPM Fusion sooner or later anyway.
I took a look at kaffeine as found in F19 yesterday, and it is still using xine-lib (and does rebuild fine against the xine-lib 1.2.3 rpm I prepared). A quick glance at upstream sources showed there are now an mplayer and vlc backend too, but it seems vlc is the default. iirc, there was also a gstreamer backend at some point, but I don't see it anymore. I don't know how to build another backend than the default one. Also, latest release is 2 years old. Do you know more about kaffeine status and would you have any advice on the way forward ?
Regards, Xavier
Hi,
On Wednesday 10 July 2013 at 10:51:44, Xavier Bachelot wrote:
I took a look at kaffeine as found in F19 yesterday, and it is still using xine-lib (and does rebuild fine against the xine-lib 1.2.3 rpm I prepared). A quick glance at upstream sources showed there are now an mplayer and vlc backend too, but it seems vlc is the default. iirc, there was also a gstreamer backend at some point, but I don't see it anymore. I don't know how to build another backend than the default one. Also, latest release is 2 years old. Do you know more about kaffeine status and would you have any advice on the way forward ?
Last I checked, Kaffeine upstream had, in their git repository at git.kde.org, moved from xine-lib to VLC to MPlayer and back to VLC, each time dropping support for the previous backend and not getting any closer to a release. As far as I can see, not much has changed in upstream git since then. (Is the main upstream maintainer secretly preparing yet another backend switch? Or a release of what's there now? Or is the project just dying? I have no idea.)
So I think the plan for Kaffeine should be to just move the current (old) Kaffeine release to RPM Fusion along with xine-lib.
Kevin Kofler
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 ?
Regards, Xavier
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. I assume that packages such as xine-ui would be subsumed in other packages then? I'd pass over maintainership to the corresponding superpackage maintainer then.
Michael
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
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
On 07/10/2013 01:42 PM, Michael J Gruber wrote:
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.
As on most lists, no, we don't top post, but no worries ;-)
We were talking about restructuring the xine packages, and xine-ui was supposed to be subsumed by another package if I remember correctly.
Ok, I see what you had in mind now. Currently, xine-lib is split into the main package in Fedora, and a companion package in RPM Fusion (xine-lib-extras-freeworld) that ships all the bits of xine-lib that cannot be in Fedora for some reason. xine-ui and the other xine-lib dependant packages don't suffer from this kind of split, so they'll stay as they are, just at a different location.
Do we move first than repackage?
I guess the plan could be to have all the packages created in RPM Fusion, then all the packages retired from Fedora. We'll need to first build xine-lib, then all the other packages. I don't have experience on this particular matter, so I welcome any advice. Especially, I don't know if the moved packages will need to be re-reviewed or not. There is a review ticket open for xine-lib in RPM Fusion bugzilla, but this is a bit different, as this is about merging xine-lib and xine-lib-extras-freeworld packages.
Please note the target is Fedora 20, so we'll have a bit of time to land all of this in devel, I'd say the target could be before branching Rawhide for F20. Indeed, the packages that are currently in Fedora 19 and earlier and EPEL are not affected. Only the devel and f20 branches will be touched.
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.
RPM Fusion strictly follows the Fedora packaging guidelines, but is less strict on the allowed software and licenses. However, the tools are a bit different than what we have now in Fedora (git vs cvs, koji vs plague, bodhi vs manual scripts). I think moving closer to the Fedora build infrastructure is in the works, but I don't know about the current status.
About maintainership of the packages, the easiest would probably be to keep the current maintainers. That's true even for xine-lib, but as I'm looking at updating it to a more recent release and Kevin wants to step down from maintaining it, I'm de facto volunteering myself ;-) About xine-ui, that's one of the frontends I'm using so I could be maintainer or co-maintainer if you wish, but again, I'm not trying to grab more packages, I have already my share ;-)
Michael
Regards, Xavier
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
Hi,
On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 10:58:22 +0200 Xavier Bachelot wrote:
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 ?
Regards, Xavier
I'd welcome volunteer to take gxine over from me as I'm not using it anymore myself and upstream isn't very dynamic either (I went through switching between various javascript versions in Fedora because mozilla folks keep breaking API/ABI hyperfast all too much; AFAIK current mozjs from xulrunner still isn't supported). But if no-one volunteers I'll maintain gxine in rpmfusion as well. But seriously, CVS and plague? That's stone age for me... Will need to refresh my memory...
Regards, Martin
Hi maintainers,
On 01/05/2012 08:56 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
(d) Move the whole thing (back) to RPM Fusion (where it originally was, before we started needing xine-lib for Amarok and Phonon, which both no longer use it). It would go to the Free section, of course. My proposal is to go with (d).
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.
xine-lib 1.2 package review is now done and it will soon be imported into RPM Fusion and the Fedora package will be retired from F20 and Rawhide. Consequently, the above packages will need to be imported into RPM Fusion and retired from Fedora 20 and Rawhide as well.
The packages won't need a re-review to be imported, so you'll just need to request an RPM Fusion account if you don't have one. Please note all sponsored Fedora packagers are automatically granted packagers privileges in RPM Fusion. I'll take care of filing the SCM requests and doing the initial builds, just provide me with your RPM Fusion username. See http://rpmfusion.org/Contributors for the account request.
I have requested commit rights for Fedora 20 and devel branches of the packages, thus, if you wish so, I'll be able to take care of retiring them once everything is in RPM Fusion.
Also, for those that are not comfortable with taming a different build system, RPM Fusion is expected to switch to koji+git before F20 final, so fear not :-)
Regards, Xavier
Xavier Bachelot venit, vidit, dixit 13.10.2013 11:36:
Hi maintainers,
On 01/05/2012 08:56 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
(d) Move the whole thing (back) to RPM Fusion (where it originally was, before we started needing xine-lib for Amarok and Phonon, which both no longer use it). It would go to the Free section, of course. My proposal is to go with (d).
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.
xine-lib 1.2 package review is now done and it will soon be imported into RPM Fusion and the Fedora package will be retired from F20 and Rawhide. Consequently, the above packages will need to be imported into RPM Fusion and retired from Fedora 20 and Rawhide as well.
The packages won't need a re-review to be imported, so you'll just need to request an RPM Fusion account if you don't have one. Please note all sponsored Fedora packagers are automatically granted packagers privileges in RPM Fusion. I'll take care of filing the SCM requests and doing the initial builds, just provide me with your RPM Fusion username. See http://rpmfusion.org/Contributors for the account request.
I have requested commit rights for Fedora 20 and devel branches of the packages, thus, if you wish so, I'll be able to take care of retiring them once everything is in RPM Fusion.
Also, for those that are not comfortable with taming a different build system, RPM Fusion is expected to switch to koji+git before F20 final, so fear not :-)
Regards, Xavier
Thanks for all your work!
I'm in rpmfusion's fas, bz and devel-ml now, applied for cvs. [BTW: self-signed cert on fas makes me feel a bit uneasy.]
I'll be more than happy to leave the lead to you in all things xine-ui, whether on the fedora or the rpmfusion side.
Cheers, Michael
On 10/14/2013 10:27 AM, Michael J Gruber wrote:
I'm in rpmfusion's fas, bz and devel-ml now, applied for cvs. [BTW: self-signed cert on fas makes me feel a bit uneasy.]
Thanks Michael (and Kevin, who replied off-list, too).
Every current (co-)maintainer but Martin have an RPM Fusion account now. Martin, I'm waiting on your account creation in RPM Fusion to request CVS modules for gxine and xine-plugin, all others modules are created.
I'll be more than happy to leave the lead to you in all things xine-ui, whether on the fedora or the rpmfusion side.
I've the feeling that together with moving xine-lib back to RPM Fusion, I'm somewhat signing to be the maintainer for all the dependant packages as well. I'm not sure I'll be able to give them all the love they need, especially as I'm not using all of them, thus I'm more than happy to have co-maintainers.
Also, I've requested commit rights to all the Fedora packages to be able to retire them, so if you want me to handle that, please make sure to grant me permission on them. So far I have only xine-lib, kaffeine and oxine. Missing are xine-ui, gxine and xine-plugin.
Regards, Xavier
Hi,
On 10/13/2013 11:36 AM, Xavier Bachelot wrote:
Hi maintainers,
On 01/05/2012 08:56 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
(d) Move the whole thing (back) to RPM Fusion (where it originally was, before we started needing xine-lib for Amarok and Phonon, which both no longer use it). It would go to the Free section, of course. My proposal is to go with (d).
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.
xine-lib 1.2 package review is now done and it will soon be imported into RPM Fusion and the Fedora package will be retired from F20 and Rawhide. Consequently, the above packages will need to be imported into RPM Fusion and retired from Fedora 20 and Rawhide as well.
The packages won't need a re-review to be imported, so you'll just need to request an RPM Fusion account if you don't have one. Please note all sponsored Fedora packagers are automatically granted packagers privileges in RPM Fusion. I'll take care of filing the SCM requests and doing the initial builds, just provide me with your RPM Fusion username. See http://rpmfusion.org/Contributors for the account request.
I have requested commit rights for Fedora 20 and devel branches of the packages, thus, if you wish so, I'll be able to take care of retiring them once everything is in RPM Fusion.
Also, for those that are not comfortable with taming a different build system, RPM Fusion is expected to switch to koji+git before F20 final, so fear not :-)
Regards, Xavier
All packages have been imported, rebuilt and pushed to RPM Fusion Fedora 20 free repository. The packages have been dead.package'ed in Fedora' GIT for f20 and master branches.
The next remaining task is to retire the packages in the pkgdb. Unfortunately, commit rights are not enough to be able to do that, so I've requested approveacls rights. Either grant me this right or retire the packages on your own. If you retire the packages, make sure to do f20 first, then devel. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_remove_a_package_at_end_of_life#Packag...
I'll take care of comps, spins and upstream release monitoring next.
Thanks to everyone involved, we are really close now.
Regards, Xavier
devel@lists.stg.fedoraproject.org
-
Kevin Kofler -
Martin Sourada -
Michael J Gruber -
Xavier Bachelot