[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: libcaca

seth vidal wrote :

> 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?
>  2. is there a good reason to continue including?
> If the answer to the above is no then:
>   Can we pull it?

It's not "dumb", it's amazing ASCII art eye-candy :-D

Isn't Extras a place for all packages that have a compatible license and
that someone is committed to actively maintain? If so, then I don't see why
libcaca should go. Sure, probably nothing in Extras depends on it because
mostly only video players use it (well, a patched SDL can too ;-)), but I
do rebuild some packages against it on freshrpms.net, and it makes more
sense for me to maintain packages in Extras rather than on freshrpms.net.

So, to the above :

1) Yes, for some of my multimedia packages.
2) Yes : I'm committed to actively maintaining it.


Clean custom Red Hat Linux rpm packages : http://freshrpms.net/
Fedora Core release 3 (Heidelberg) - Linux kernel 2.6.10-1.766_FC3
Load : 0.17 0.18 0.16

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]