2007/4/2, Tom K <tom@archlinux.org>:

Roman Kyrylych wrote:

...

Hi!

We have xfce-svn group in Unstable repo, that was maintained by Shadowhand until he resigned as a maintainer. Because packages are not maintained now users fill bugreports about non-working packages. Is there a need in xfce-svn now? If noone is interested in maintaining them then I propose to remove them.

AFAIR the initial interest in these packages was due to the longer-than-expected wait for the official 4.4 release. This is now in extra for quite a while, and I know many former svn users have changed over to it. xerverius, an Arch-using xfce dev who frequents the forum, strongly recommends that course of action to anyone who will listen - however, people hold out, for whatever reason.

I believe the expectation that people have of the unstable repo is that it will provide the latest bleeding-edge-almost-to-the-point-of-failure versions of whatever apps we put there. I used to see xfce-svn as the unstable 'flagship', but that is no longer the case, and as it seems nobody wants to maintain it, I agree that it would be better to remove it from the repo.

Perhaps a TU would like to look after it in community?

Just one addition: IMO xfmedia should be moved from community to extra, same for xfburn (there's xfburn-svn only though). -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)

Andreas Radke wrote:

Am Mon, 2 Apr 2007 15:24:20 +0300 schrieb "Roman Kyrylych" <roman.kyrylych@gmail.com>:

...

Just one addition: IMO xfmedia should be moved from community to extra, same for xfburn (there's xfburn-svn only though).

+1 to move those 2 packages even in this early state.

Andy

_______________________________________________ arch-dev-public mailing list arch-dev-public@archlinux.org http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-dev-public

xfmedia, maybe - although it is described as "beta-quality, and likely has bugs" on its own website. I maintained it for a while in community, and it never felt particularly solid. xfburn? I see no reason why this should go in extra, when its own devs don't even consider it stable enough to release at all. I'd put them both in unstable myself.

Roman Kyrylych wrote:

2007/4/2, Tom K <tom@archlinux.org>:

...

Andreas Radke wrote:

...

Am Mon, 2 Apr 2007 15:24:20 +0300 schrieb "Roman Kyrylych" <roman.kyrylych@gmail.com>:

...

Just one addition: IMO xfmedia should be moved from community to extra, same for xfburn (there's xfburn-svn only though). +1 to move those 2 packages even in this early state.

Andy

_______________________________________________ arch-dev-public mailing list arch-dev-public@archlinux.org http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-dev-public

xfmedia, maybe - although it is described as "beta-quality, and likely has bugs" on its own website. I maintained it for a while in community, and it never felt particularly solid. xfburn? I see no reason why this should go in extra, when its own devs don't even consider it stable enough to release at all.

I'd put them both in unstable myself.

Hm, what about squeeze then? Is it stable? (just asking)

Re the original question, I'd suggest you ask on tur-users if any TU wants to maintain it in Community. If not, we can move it to Unsupported for anyone to pick up there. Community would be preferable, of course, but IMO it wouldn't be a bad result at all if an enthusiastic AUR user maintained the PKGBUILDs in Unsupported, possibly accompanied by an unofficial repo for the compiled packages. After all, that's how Shadowhand started it off in the first place. T.