homes for the homeless.
bdpepple at ameritech.net
Tue Apr 25 13:47:10 UTC 2006
On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 15:22 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > Should sodipodi be included in Extras again considering it's not being
> > actively developed? Seems sorta pointless since it's successor Inkscape
> > is already included in FE.
> 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).
I'm well aware that non-active packages are accepted in FE, but does it
make sense to spend time on packaging this, when there is a clear
successor to sodipodi that is actively be developed?
Brian Pepple <bdpepple at ameritech.net>
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 810CC15E
BD5E 6F9E 8688 E668 8F5B CBDE 326A E936 810C C15E
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the fedora-extras-list