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.