rhythmbox 0.9.6 and edgy....

[George Farris]

On Mon, 2006-02-10 at 16:28 -0400, Matthew Nicholson wrote:
> Okay, I know the universe freeze is in place, but, i have a few points
> to make, so just hear me out:
> 
> rhythmbox 0.9.6 got released the other day. This release brings a bunch
> of fixes/improvments, mainly more plugins, better tag-writing and
> ipod-writing, local file support for album art, etc etc etc.
> 
> some of the features, which are now on by default, since they are more
> stable, have been turned on in ubuntu in past builds (0.9.5 and further
> back had tag-writing turned on, even though its was semi-functional, the
> newest 0.9.5 build came down the pipe with the track-transfers and
> ipod-writing turned on, even though upstream they were not by default).
> 
> so, point number one: things we used to turn on that were not default on
> upstream, are now on, because they are more stable.
> 
> point two: gnome 2.16.1 is being sync'd if I am correct, and rhythmbox
> IS the gnome music application.....
> 
> point three: it builds, which no dependency problems. on a clean install
> an "apt-get build-dep rhythmbox", which, of course, pulled down all the
> build deps for the 0.9.5 build in the repos. after this jsut a good
> ole ./configure && make && make install did teh trick to get it built
> and running.
> 
> point four: its a bit quicker, less buggy, comes with a whole slew of
> updated translations, and, in a word, better. 
> 
> So, as I said, I know the universe freeze is in effect, so, it isn't
> "supposed" to happen. however, I'm asking for an exception, for the
> points listed above. At the very least, I would like to ask if we (i am
> more than willing to help if someone will guide a bit) look into
> patching our build up to this, if thats even feasible...
> 
> I would hate to see an application that acme out 3 weeks to a month
> before the release of edgy miss, jsut because it was a few days past the
> deadline, but, I know that we need rules, and we can't make exceptions
> for everything, for then we would end up with a rolling release date,
> and would never really "release". All I ask is for some consideration
> and explanation. Thanks
> 
> Regards,
> 

+1