On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 12:33:17AM -0500, Toshio Kuratomi 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. This comes up now and then. Some package are completly unmaintained, but also completly stable and don't need an upstream maintainer anymore, so that maintaining them in fedora is right. Some can be maintained by the fedora packager if he has time and skills. For some others not having any upstream is bound to trouble because of potential security issues, and the package should better be dropped from fedora. I'd say leave it to the packager and use the usual disagreement procedure (complain to the list, escalate to fesco). -- Pat -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
