Rahul Sundaram wrote: > It is not useful to generalize. There are lots of software components > which aren't actively maintained but are useful to have in the > distribution and all distributions have them however a desktop > environment is a lot of work to maintain (as seen for instance in > http://blog.linuxmint.com/?p=1901) and if upstream is not active, then > any potential needs to be aware of this before volunteering this > feature. If someone really wants to still do it, there is nothing in > Fedora stopping it from happening. I was merely raising a potential > issue to think about in advance. Software with dead or almost dead upstream is a two-edged sword: * If the software is working well, that's the software which is easiest to maintain, since there are generally few to no new upstream releases to take care of. :-) (But if it's something like Trinity, which manages to churn out release after release with a single maintainer, including binary-incompatible library changes, that's also not the case. But I'd place that in the below paragraph anyway. ;-) There are literally THOUSANDS of KDE 3 bugs closed as fixed in KDE SC 4.) * If the software has many bugs, it's the software which is hardest to maintain, because then YOU as the Fedora maintainer are on the hook for fixing those bugs. Unfortunately, a desktop environment tends to be in the latter situation. So I'm sceptical about MATE (seeing what's going on with Trinity) and I can only strongly discourage attempting to package Trinity. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
