homes for the homeless.

Michael J Knox michael at
Tue Apr 25 18:46:56 UTC 2006

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 ;)


More information about the fedora-extras-list mailing list