[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Intent to adopt GStreamer for Debian GNOME Maintainers

Ar 11/04/2004 am 12:47, ysgrifennodd Sebastien Bacher:
> "David I. Lehn" <dlehn@debian.org> writes:
> > 0.6.x: There has only been one GStreamer core release since Oct.  I
> > didn't upload it due to the minor fixes and I don't know how best to
> > manage the non-versioned non-parallel-installable tools that are now in
> > both 0.6.x and 0.8.x.
> I don't know if there is a minor release but some Gnome people were
> complaining about this last week. 
> According to gstreamer website: "fixing some parallel install issues",
> apparently 0.6.5 add a -0.6 suffix that's not in 0.6.4 ... which is the
> debian version. Gnome's people where complaining about this, bad to no
> have 0.6.5 on this point.

I think it would make sense to package 0.6.5 on the basis that

 a) It should not be much work.
 b) Parallel installation is highly desirable since 0.6 will be in the
    archive for some time due to dependents (bindings and applications)
    and users will likely need both versions at the same time for a

> > I figured I'd wait for 0.8.  Or maybe I figured it was just dev code.
> > Or maybe I have no good excuse.
> The point is that now rhythmbox (and totem, I'd like to build a
> gstreamer version) are waiting for 0.8 for 2 weeks. Not a big deal but
> it would be great to have it soon.
> > they seem to be in fairly good shape now.  I was going to try and get
> > them uploaded this week.
> s/week/week end/ ? :)
> > Does the GNOME team want to take on all of the GStreamer related
> > packages?  Current the core, plugins, editor, and player.  Also there
> > are various language bindings which in time I assume will all get
> > packaged.
> I would say "no". Let me know if you disagree people. 
> In my mind it's a pretty big people and not a lot (none ?) of Gnome Team
> people are involved on its developpement, so I doubt we would do better
> than David on this without spending a lot of time ... and I'm really not
> sure that's a good idea to spend a lot of time of gstreamer if it
> already has an maintainer. If some people feel to work on gstreamer they
> should probably try to help David on this.

The Ruby bindings for GStreamer come from the ruby-gnome2 source
package, which provides bindings for all the various GNOME-related
libraries. So if the GStreamer binding were to be maintained by the
GNOME team, so must all the other Ruby GNOME 2 bindings. As the
maintainer, I'm not sure I really mind much one way or another.

I suppose the broader question is what the scope of the GNOME team is -
i.e. does it include related libraries and bindings or not?

I think things mostly work as they are, so things should stay as they
are. Packaging packages included with the GNOME release as a team makes
clear sense, but I can't see a case for extending that scope.

What happens when the various language bindings get a regular,
coordinated release cycle is another matter.

> > My opinion is that I would rather see the various gstreamer projects in
> > their own alioth "GStreamer Debian Packages" space rather than with the
> > GNOME team.  
> Seems the right thing to do. GStreamer is a big piece, and not really
> GNOME specific (perhaps KDE will use it IIRC).

Yes, it's definitely moving away from being a GNOME-specific thing. The
move to freedesktop.org was a clear signal.

But it wouldn't make sense to include the Ruby bindings with a Debian
GStreamer project, because (as I said) they come with the GNOME bindings.

> > At a minimum I'd like to offer up my current 0.8 work since it's nearly
> > done.  I converted my local CVS packaging archive to an arch repository
> > and was planning on putting it on arch.d.o.  I'm not sure how that would
> > fit with the GNOME teams subversion use.

I suggest you go for putting it on arch.d.o. Things can always be moved
around later, and having a public repository is something that would be
good now, regardless of the choice of revision control system. (Well, as
long as it isn't CVS. :))

> No need to have it on the SVN for the moment, and I've put your debs on
> alioth last week for people that want to try it. Apparently there is
> some namespace problem, and it could be usefull to upload 0.6.5 to fix
> that ...

Yes, 0.6.5 would be really nice to have.

> BTW thanks for the good job on gstreamer,

Yes, thanks a lot!


Reply to: