[packman] [RFC] Main Dependency Portability was: Re: ffmpeg update to version 2.0

Marguerite Su i at marguerite.su
Sun Jul 28 18:28:21 CEST 2013

Hi, Pascal,

I'm glad you're on the radar again :-)

And thanks for backing me

On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 11:48 PM, Pascal Bleser <pascal.bleser at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Marguerite
> [...]
>> If upstream ffmpeg has been 2.0 now but a package is still using 0.7,
>> we can consider it as a drop taget or a dead project.
> Yes, but it's not that easy to find out that a package is dead.
> Or maybe there are some new OBS tools I don't know of.

I saw the trick just a few days ago, on this page:


osc -Apm whatdependson Essentials ffmpeg_oldabi openSUSE_12.3 x86_64
ffmpeg_oldabi :

I'm still researching on this tool too...

> Right, and also, we are still very low on contributors compared to the
> amount of work we have.

...I do have to this thread on topic, but just curious:

We have less server managers than contributors (that's true
everywhere, while I just know you as admin)...so can we (just curious
'coz I don't know our history much and I'm not an europe lawyer) open
the registration or add some people that can and just to help spead
the authorization process up? I didn't talk about adding server
admins, I'm talking about adding some "gate keepers".

>> [RFC 2] Package Maintainership
>> I think those who introduced them should now be responsible to delete
>> them. And our repository maintainers should be _very_  careful about
>> introducing such packages in the future (After 6 months, no one will
>> know what this package is for).
> Yeah, that's tricky, OBS doesn't have a way to have.. say.. "comments"
> about packages where we could explain why it was introduced.

For a workaround..we can edit the package description entry on PMBS...

BTW, a discuss system is arriving. A GSoC student picked it up this year.

>> (B) Some packagers maintain a same package on PMBS as OBS, because in
>> PMBS, packages can provide extended functions.
> Correct.
> Or, also, someone packages something that was on Packman on OBS (e.g. in
> multimedia:libs or multimedia:apps), doesn't tell us anything about it, we
> find out a while later, and we're the ones to adapt our package to link to
> that one and add extended features.
> (yes, that is *quite* a bit annoying...)

My fault. I didn't take those situations that some OBS guys build
their own and sumit as offical or we pick packages from OBS and
extends them without telling the upstream, into consideration. So
there might be better ways around, guys?

> Since when is Packman sponsored? Well, it has been, a bit, in return and as
> a thank you for the work we have been putting into this for so many years
> (remember, it even predates openSUSE), but no one can really say that we
> are sponsored to do this and that and, in return, we should do this and
> that.

Aha? I just saw a big...well, we don't want to mention the word
here...SuSE logo on our PMBS, saying we're sponsored by it...or it's
just a default setting that didn't got removed?

BTW, what's the donation account? I don't even know we have donation
channel. openSUSE Chinese community still have some money left after
paying forum server, take'em.



More information about the Packman mailing list