Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 1:08 PM, Robert Scheck
> HAHA. Somebody working for Fedora Project which is always telling not to
> ship a private library but always use the system one suggests such a thing
> to me? And I don't care about other distributions and well, beecrypt could
> end up in a future EPEL release - even if I've to maintain there myself ;)
If the beecrypt upstream is dead....and you are wanting to do this
primarily to support a closed source application that won't be in
Fedora.... is maintaining this in Fedora appopriate?
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.