vlc and mplayer gtk2 version

[leon]

Matthew Nicholson <sjoeboo at sjoeboo.com> writes:

 | what do you mean over complicated? from my experience, its pretty
 | simple.
 | 
 | a package won't be backported if:
 | its a lib (things would break)
 | its a major package (aka, gnome 2.14 because it would be a TON of work)
 | it won't build cleanly.
 | its dependencies have issues (can't/won't backport, etc)

These rules rule out lots of apps. Fedora 4 has been released for a long
time, but still maintains latest softwares. Maybe we could learn
something from there.

 | 
 | and from the looks of it, these two packages fit right in there. mplayer
 | won't build cleanly. and vlc has dependencies that won't backport, or
 | are against the rules to backport.
 | 
 | did i miss what you meant by "over-complicated" ? 
 | 
 | 
 | on a semi-related note:
 | 
 | I was wondering what, if any interest might exist in creating some sort
 | of backports web-based sandbox/try out area. i just thought is up and it
 | might go something like this:
 | 
 | user( via html form) asks for a package to be backported.
 | package name would be checked against a blacklist of some sort of known
 | "un-backport-able" packages.
 | if its in this list, the user gets a "sorry..."
 | if not, a build is attempted. 
 | if it fails, the users gets a "sorry" message and the (needed) output to
 | diagnose the problem, with links to the forum and/or mailing list to get
 | more help/explanation. 
 | if it builds clean, the user is notified that all is well.
 | I figure here, maybe the package would be put in a temp. repo of some
 | sort, where the user can manually download it (only the package they
 | requested)if they wish (with warnings etc). a notice would automatically
 | be sent to the list, saying the build went fine, along with a log of it
 | all, for final approval, before its gets moved to the "real" backports
 | repo. 
 | 
 | any comments/ideas? its something i might start hacking on soon, since
 | backporting most applications is as simple as passing a package name to
 | the script. plus then there would be one central place to
 | request/attempt builds, and users could get "custom backports", things
 | that build clean but won't be officially backported due to
 | rules/possible instabilities etc (with loads of warning of course).

It is a great idea! 

 | 
 | just an idea i had brewing. 
 |  
 | On Fri, 2005-12-23 at 00:31 +0000, leon wrote:
 | > Feel that current backport policy is over-complicated.
 | > 
 | > John Dong <jdong at ubuntu.com> writes:
 | > 
 | >  | This information is correct.
 | >  | 
 | >  | On 12/22/05, Travis Watkins <alleykat at gmail.com> wrote:
 | >  | >
 | >  | > On 12/22/05, leon <sdl.web at gmail.com> wrote:
 | >  | > > Hi all,
 | >  | > >
 | >  | > > Any plan to backport this two critical apps with gtk2?
 | >  | > >
 | >  | >
 | >  | > IIRC the VLC in dapper no long backports, plus to get gtk2 widgets
 | >  | > you'd need wxwidgets 2.6 (won't be backported). Not sure about mplayer
 | >  | > though.
 | >  | >
 | >  | > --
 | >  | > Travis Watkins
 | >  | > http://www.realistanew.com
 | >  | >
 | >  | > --
 | >  | > ubuntu-backports mailing list
 | >  | > ubuntu-backports at lists.ubuntu.com
 | >  | > http://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-backports
 | >  | >

-- 
.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:. 
.     *                               . 
.    /.\        Merry Christmas       . 
.   /..'\                             . 
.   /'.'\                  -- Leon    . 
.  /.''.'\                            . 
.  /.'.'.\                            . 
. /'.''.'.\                           . 
. ^^^[_]^^^                           . 
.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:.