|
|
> > Not actively developed packages are accepted in extras. Even packages
> > without clear upstream or no upstream (this happens a lot for old packages
> > that are fortunately often also very stable).
>
> So, is this true for Sodipodi? That's the question.
I was not thinking about sodipodi, I don't know that package at all. I was
thinking about 3 packages I maintain libsx, asa and intuitively. But I agree
these are rather simple packages (libsx is X based, but based on Xaw...).
> Some projects are abandoned because the developers haved reached a point
> where they believe they are done. And they seem to work satisfactory for
> several months or even years. However, there's always the risk that an
> unmaintained piece of software will need maintenance in a form which
> requires upstream development, particularly when it is a GUI application.
> It could be anything ranging from non-trivial C/C++ standards compliance
> updates, ordinary bugs, to updates required by changes in APIs. Think twice
> before you encourage our users to start using a program where this might
> happen.
I encourage nobody. Everybody is free to maintain or use a piece of software.
I am just saying that it is not forbidden, it is up to the packager.
--
Pat
--
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
|
|