libcaca
Bill Nottingham
notting at redhat.com
Thu Feb 24 19:41:15 UTC 2005
seth vidal (skvidal at phy.duke.edu) said:
> Hey folks,
> So a request to rebuild libcaca came along. I'm curious about this -
> umm, why? I understand there's no problem with including libcaca on any
> legal grounds but maybe we should add a 'this is dumb' standard that can
> be applied occasionally, esp when there's no demand for a package.
>
> So I guess what I'm asking is:
>
> 1. is there demand for libcaca?
Sure!
(Seriously, it's no worse than aalib, or GtkAda, or a variety
of other things.)
> 2. is there a good reason to continue including?
Does it have a willing maintainer?
Bill
More information about the fedora-extras-list
mailing list