Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477683 --- Comment #8 from Michal Nowak <mnowak@xxxxxxxxxx> 2008-12-23 18:29:16 EDT --- (In reply to comment #7) > If there's concern for its future, and it's that unstable and buggy, why do we > want it in Fedora in the first place? There's a concern from my POV on FLTK2's *short*-term future w.r.t. its API/ABI stability, because it's released thru snapshots only but that's something we don't care much, OpenSSL used to break ABI every its second release. Rapidly changing library might be a problem for Fedora in case we have a lot of FLTK2-dependent apps, which we don't have; Dillo2 should be the first and most demanded one. >From my experience with Dillo2, FLTK2 behaves quite nice, I wouldn't say it's unstable w.r.t core library (on API/ABI I have elaborated already) & buggy -- it's supported upstream (read its "FLTK 2.0.x Weekly Snapshot" reports). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review