Hi Mark, [ late answer, I know... ]
Mark Howard wrote: > When I was looking through the RFP list a while back, I noticed many > of them were for packages that were not maintained upstream - sometimes > they were still at the planning stage after a number of years; sometimes > they had been abandoned (many napster clones); in other cases, upstream > just seemed to be very amateurish with little sign of development (e.g. > not using cvs; no mailing lists; seem to be only one developer; no I do not think all the points you are describing are _necessary_. I second that these things are good but in my opinion there's no must. I myself maintain a package (kover), which has not a mailing list and CVS seems only to be updated if there's a new version released which makes CVS quite senseless... > documentation; latest 'news' on the site being from many months or years > ago; poorly designed website). How do you define poorly designed website? A website has _not_ to use the newest crap to be functional and you can find there what you want to. In that case the kover Homepage (http://lisas.de/kover) is an example... Considering the 'news' aspect, you're right. That indicates that upstream development is slept or it died... Regards, Rene -- .''`. Rene Engelhard : :' : ** Debian GNU/Linux Developer ** `. `' http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
pgpyr4TI9Fbrd.pgp
Description: PGP signature
