Package suggestion for core updates.

Package suggestion for core updates.

[Rick Huijzer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 335 bytes --]

Hi,

Congratulations to everyone. Great job.

I would like to (may I ?) suggest libusb v1.0.27 to be added to the list of
packages for the new core-updates team.

I know that this might be a quite large effort (3000+ will be rebuilt) but
I'm happy to help testing and maybe bug fixing simple problems when my
holiday is over.

Thanks.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 550 bytes --]

Re: Package suggestion for core updates.

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hello,

Rick Huijzer <ikbenrickhuyzer@gmail.com> skribis:

> I would like to (may I ?) suggest libusb v1.0.27 to be added to the list of
> packages for the new core-updates team.

Andy Tai <atai@atai.org> skribis:

> Hi, shall changes to non-core packages like ffmpeg still be in the
> scope of core-updates?
>
> ffmpeg, for example, is no where near the core of the GNU system like
> glibc, but still it is widely dependent upon.   But it would make no
> sense to have a ffmpeg-team because it is used by packages over wide
> areas, KDE, GNOME and others.   It is not well defined in a package
> realm like GNOME packages.

‘core-updates’ won’t come back, and libusb and ffmpeg is outside the
scope of the ‘core-packages’ team (which I think is good: that would be
just way too broad).

But you’re right that there’s a gap to fill.  Perhaps a ‘video’ or a
‘desktop-core’ team would be a good match for ffmpeg?

As for libusb and other packages that are low-level but not covered by
any other team, either we create we find an area that’s quite consistent
and create a team around it (probably doable), or we can always take
care of their updates in an ad-hoc fashion, with dedicated branch.  Of
course, the latter only works as long as there’s not too many of them,
so it would probably make sense to create more teams.

Thoughts?

Thanks,
Ludo’.