[pkg-fso-maint] Slowly uploading to main: independent packages (was Re: Slowly uploading to main)

[Luca Capello]

Hi there!

On Fri, 15 May 2009 12:36:49 +0200, Luca Capello wrote:
> 1) independent packages

* yue-sounds-fso (fso-sounds-yue-base, fso-sounds-yue-full)

  This one is ready and fully DFSG-free, I will upload it to main
  shortly after this mail.  I am wondering if I should upload the
  very same package to pkg-fso as well, because of

    http://projects.linuxtogo.org/pipermail/smartphones-userland/2009-March/001360.html


* xf86-video-glamo (xserver-xorg-video-glamo)

  Upstream files are under various licenses (XFree86, MIT and
  GPL-2+), thus legal advice or upstream statement is necessary

    http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2009/05/msg00013.html

  Another showstopper is the autoreconf stuff, as I exaplined at

    http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-fso-maint/2009-May/001139.html


* xglamo (xserver-xorg-xglamo)

  Now that xf86-video-glamo is available, I do not see any point in
  keeping this one, for various reasons:

  - it is dead upstream, last commit is 4 months ago

      http://git.openmoko.org/?p=xglamo.git;a=summary

  - it suffers various bugs in Debian

      http://bugs.debian.org/xserver-xglamo

  - it needs a special trick to fit in the Debian X11 universe

      http://bugs.debian.org/502120


* linux-2.6-openmoko (linux-image-2.6.24-openmoko-gta02,
   linux-image-2.6.28-openmoko-gta02, linux-image-2.6.29-openmoko-gta02)

  First, if no one complain, I will remove the 2.6.24 flavour before the
  end of the week: I do not know if someone is still using it and AFAIK
  there are no big regression WRT 2.6.28.

  About 2.6.29, however, the battery problem has not been solved yet

    http://projects.linuxtogo.org/pipermail/smartphones-userland/2009-March/001335.html
    http://projects.linuxtogo.org/pipermail/smartphones-kernel/2009-March/000056.html

  Going back to the topic, this package will be never uploaded to me (at
  least by myself), for obvious reasons.  The binary package name issue
  is still open, I will try to revive it, but so far it seems no one has
  any interest to fix it

    http://bugs.debian.org/503292

  The usefulness of the above bug is questionable if we consider that it
  is still unsure if GTA01 and GTA02 can share a basic kernel

    http://projects.linuxtogo.org/pipermail/smartphones-userland/2009-April/001401.html


Thx, bye,
Gismo / Luca
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 314 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-fso-maint/attachments/20090515/5662f4fe/attachment.pgp>