Beecrypt retired

Callum Lerwick seg at haxxed.com
Thu Mar 13 06:11:59 UTC 2008


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.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20080313/7b6ee9aa/attachment.sig>


More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list