General question about GStreamer plugin packages

[Sebastian Dröge]

Am Mittwoch, den 11.03.2009, 13:04 +0100 schrieb Fabian Greffrath:
> Dear Sebastian,
> 
> I am curious! ;)
> 
> I have seen that with the latest releases of the GStreamer plugins 
> packages, the twolame plugin has been moved from the "bad" plugin set 
> to the "ugly" plugin set.
> 
> I'd like to know what was the cause of this move. Is it comparable to 
> the way packages are treated in Debian's archive, where they have to 
> prove for a while in unstable (= bad) before they may advance to 
> testing (=u gly)? Or is manual intervention by a maintainer necessary?

-bad is where all new plugins will go first. If a plugin complies to
some rules (documentation, unit tests, review by 2 developers, no
critical bugs known) it can be moved to -good or -ugly depending on the
license/patent situation (-ugly gets things with patents, GPL licensed
plugins and other licenses that can cause problems).

For twolame I've requested it to be moved for the new releases.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-gstreamer-maintainers/attachments/20090311/a576e042/attachment.pgp