homes for the homeless.

[Michael J Knox]

Brian Pepple wrote:
> 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?
> 


Well, its my time I am spending, not your's ;)

Michael