[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Housekeeping (Was Re: FE Package Status of Sep 4, 2006)

On Mon, 2006-09-04 at 21:20 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:

> 28 Packages not present in the development repo
> -> most of them probably should be marked as dead.package in cvs. If
> they get re-submitted later they should go though a full review again.
>    toshio at tiki-lounge dot com              hula

I'd like to send hula this way.  I took it on when it was about to be
ousted a few months back and have been trying to get it up to snuff but
there have been several problems:

1) Hula is now partially mono.  This should be fixable now that the mono
guidelines are mostly nailed down.

2) Hula's licensing is a bit ambiguous.  The COPYING file says "TODO".
The web page says "An Open Source License".  There's references to
Novell's NetMail forming the Core of Hula under the LGPL.  Some of the
source reflects this and other pieces seem to be GPL and Apache.  I
haven't delved far enough in to see if these pieces can coexist in the
project or if it has to be resolved by upstream.

3) Hula contains several pieces of code that should be external:
libical, log4c, and sqlite.  mono is included but a configure check
properly excludes building it.

4) To the best of my knowledge the Hula package has never undergone a
full review.  It slipped in during the transition from fedora.us to
Fedora Extras.

2 & 3 are a bit more work than I have time for right now.  In view of 4,
I'd like Hula to require a review before being unorphaned rather than
the new maintainer being able to immediately build it.

Shall I follow:
with a note of: "Needs to be reviewed before being resurrected"?


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]