By my name you know I'm a big Dragonlance fan, but the OP's contention is weak. For every thing that WotC has done to make a DL conversion easier, they've done another to make it harder.
We don't have Minotaurs, which is major, and Dragonborn seem very different from Draconians. Moreover there's really no place for the Tieflings I can think of. Alignments (which are huge in DL) are completely different, there's no Druid or Monk (yet), and Magic Users have been completely overhauled in such a way that there is no quick fix to getting anything that looks like the Dragonlance we know.
But, that doesn't mean I'm not going to make a DL/4E homebrew.
I think it is very clear that both the Qualinesti and the Sylvanesti should be based off of Eladrin. The Sylvanesti are closer to the archetype WotC has presented, but Qualinesti are closer to Eladrin than "Elves" as 4E seems to assume. The Kagonesti are the "elves."
Also, I think it would be intriguing to present Dragonborn exactly as written in the 4E PHB and say "Oh, well, when Draconians figure out how to breed, Dragonborn is what you get. All that turning to stone and different color-types is first-generation only." You can have both Draconians and Dragonborn co-existing, but only the Draconians are innately evil, and only the Dragonborn are available as PC's. Perhaps some Dragonborn have been converted to the worship of Good and Neutral gods by prisoners taken during the Wars, or by missionaries.
Minotaurs can probably be quickly arranged for by re-labeling a Hobgoblin from the 4E MM (standard hobgoblins being closer to DL Minotaurs than what DL calls "Hobgoblins"), using the monsters-as-PC rules they've promised, and swapping out beast-breeding skills for sailing. Oh, and a charge attack of some kind.
I would also present Halflings exactly as written in the 4E PHB, just changing the name. Kender, as written in the DL books, were unplayble. Well, you could play them, but it wasn't easy on everyone else. I would not encourage anyone to choose a character that was designed to be disruptive.
For the same reason, I see no reason to make Tinker Gnomes a PC race. They exist, you can go to Mt. Nevermind if you insist, but otherwise, we can just as easily pretend they're not there.
Lastly, and bear me out, I'm wondering if the Tieflings (with proper re-theming and new coat of paint) will make good Irda? We'll have to see on that one; just no way to know at this time.
A tricky thing (I think), based on what we know, will be the Wizards of High Sorcery. WotC has done us no favors there. If you're 5th Age, well, that's all screwy anyway, but if you want to play in any other age (as I prefer), the removal of the schools and the nerfing of illusion and necromancy, and the "All Wizards are now Evokers" schtick they've got going ... well, it'll be tricky. Maybe some combination of Disciplines will be able to recreate the feel there. We'll have to see.
The last thing I can think of right now, and this will be a real stickey wicket among the fan base, I bet, will be how to handle alignment. I think the 4E changes to alignment (from what we've seen) are a Good Thing(TM). I don't want to re-introduce the full nine-point spectrum, and get in arguments over what "True Neutral" means. Moreover, I think it would be a fascinating exercise to try to reimagine the various races and Gods as only Good, Evil, Lawful, Chaotic or Unaligned, and not any combination of those. Some would be very easy (Chaos is Chaotic, Takhisis is Evil, Mishakel is Good, etc.), but a lot of them will be harder cases. For instance, I think Minotaurs should be either unaligned or Lawful, and rarely Evil. Likewise I think many Sylvanesti are unaligned, despite their pretensions to being "Good". etc.
