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
