> > Not actively developed packages are accepted in extras. Even packages > > without clear upstream or no upstream (this happens a lot for old packages > > that are fortunately often also very stable). > > So, is this true for Sodipodi? That's the question. I was not thinking about sodipodi, I don't know that package at all. I was thinking about 3 packages I maintain libsx, asa and intuitively. But I agree these are rather simple packages (libsx is X based, but based on Xaw...). > Some projects are abandoned because the developers haved reached a point > where they believe they are done. And they seem to work satisfactory for > several months or even years. However, there's always the risk that an > unmaintained piece of software will need maintenance in a form which > requires upstream development, particularly when it is a GUI application. > It could be anything ranging from non-trivial C/C++ standards compliance > updates, ordinary bugs, to updates required by changes in APIs. Think twice > before you encourage our users to start using a program where this might > happen. I encourage nobody. Everybody is free to maintain or use a piece of software. I am just saying that it is not forbidden, it is up to the packager. -- Pat -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
