On Wed, 14 Apr 2010, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 11:01:01 -0700, Adam wrote: > >> It seems to me that Seth quite carefully wrote his email specifically to >> forestall replies of this kind. Apparently it wasn't enough... > > Of course not. The subject says "potentially unmaintained packages". > The message makes a fuss about it, even mentions scenarios like retiring > packages. What it doesn't comment on is that despite missing rebuilds, > a package may still be maintained both in Fedora and upstream. It doesn't > mention other potentially unmaintained packages which are missing on > the list because they have seen rebuilds (even if just for spec > modifications), but which are dead upstream and unmaintained in Fedora. seriously? I don't think I ever said the list was all inclusive. -sv -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
