On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 15:22 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote: > > Should sodipodi be included in Extras again considering it's not being > > actively developed? Seems sorta pointless since it's successor Inkscape > > is already included in FE. > > 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). I'm well aware that non-active packages are accepted in FE, but does it make sense to spend time on packaging this, when there is a clear successor to sodipodi that is actively be developed? /B -- Brian Pepple <bdpepple ameritech net> gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 810CC15E BD5E 6F9E 8688 E668 8F5B CBDE 326A E936 810C C15E
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part