On Thu, 2008-03-13 at 00:33 -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > Jeff Spaleta wrote: > > 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. > > > 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. I distinctly remember a rather long thread on this very topic some time back. And as I remember, defining exactly what an "active upstream" is was a major sticking point.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
