Re: libcaca

[Bill Nottingham <notting redhat com>]

seth vidal (skvidal phy duke edu) said: 
> Hey folks,
>  So a request to rebuild libcaca came along. I'm curious about this -
> umm, why? I understand there's no problem with including libcaca on any
> legal grounds but maybe we should add a 'this is dumb' standard that can
> be applied occasionally, esp when there's no demand for a package.
> 
> So I guess what I'm asking is:
> 
>  1. is there demand for libcaca?

Sure!

(Seriously, it's no worse than aalib, or GtkAda, or a variety
of other things.)

>  2. is there a good reason to continue including?

Does it have a willing maintainer?

Bill