Jeff Spaleta wrote:
There's some basis for Jef's argument in the "Fedora is not a dumping ground for old, unmaintained software" philosophy. OTOH, the line between no upstream, a little upstream activity, and maintained by the Fedora Packager could get blurry here. So if we're planning on proposing some actual guidelines regarding what is an appropriate level of upstream activity to consider a package for Fedora, a conversation about this is *definitely* needed.On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 1:08 PM, Robert Scheck <robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:HAHA. Somebody working for Fedora Project which is always telling not to ship a private library but always use the system one suggests such a thing to me? And I don't care about other distributions and well, beecrypt could end up in a future EPEL release - even if I've to maintain there myself ;)If the beecrypt upstream is dead....and you are wanting to do this primarily to support a closed source application that won't be in Fedora.... is maintaining this in Fedora appopriate? I'm not sure it is. If you un-retire this package, I believe this will be prelude to a discussion concerning whether Fedora should insist on there being an 'active' upstream for the component.
-Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
