Does libgpod have a (pro)active maintainer in Core?

[Jeff Spaleta]

On 11/20/06, Alexander Larsson <alexl at redhat.com> wrote:
> Ok. I'm not sure what removing the python-eye3d support does, but just
> removing stuff souds scary, so I will spin an update for FC5/FC6 without
> the python bindings. Then we can add python bindings in extras for FC6.
>
> For FC7 maybe we can enable the python bindings when the mythical
> core/extras merger happens.
>
> Sounds ok?

I have no problem with that, as a concerned user.  We need to make
sure the maintainers in Extras with affected packages are aware of
this plan, and then I can break out the eye poking stick again and get
one of them to spin up the bindings through the extras review process.

I'd suggest spinning the update up as a test-update so we can make
sure that there isn't some gotcha, like a change in the library api,
that is going to break one of the applications that makes use of this.
At the very least we need to make sure rhythmbox works with the
update.  The rhythmbox maintainer in Core maybe able to provide you
guidance on that, if you respond to the bugreport he filed against
libgpod.

-jef