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=546169 --- Comment #8 from Huzaifa S. Sidhpurwala <huzaifas@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-12-11 01:29:11 EDT --- (In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #6) > > Upstream, does not have time to maintain this anymore. > OK, then my impression was right, it's a private fork. > > > There are patches lined up for months now sp the ones related to memory leak. > Well, this is nothing unusual. > > IMO, the appropriate approach to this would be to either "patch the original > package" or to make your "private fork" a "public fork"/"official project". > This is not a private fork. What makes a fork private or public? I am ready for other people to contribute to this project too, its just that its hosted on fedorahosted which is easier for me then putting it on sourceforge. > Private forks don't help anybody - How do other distros handle this issue in > this particular case? > > > I will bump the release next time :) > TIA. -- 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