Till Maas wrote:
> We can use "uberpackagers" ;-) or maybe "package-monkeys", make it a SIG
> and then it is afaik already covered by Fedora procedures, because a SIG
> or group of packagers can own a package, like e.g. the lvm-team.
>
> Orcan, Richard, who else is in?
As an "inclusionist" and someone who has often stepped in to fix broken
dependencies in, uhm, "very passively maintained" packages, count me in!
I think it's in almost all cases better to have a package than not to have
it, even if it's not well maintained.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
