[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Rules for packaging forked software



On Sun, Feb 09, 2014 at 10:33:19PM +1100, Craig Small wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 11:31:20PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> > Upstreams continue to disappoint me :(
> I tend ending up as my own upstream a lot of the time, so I provide my
> own disappointment.
> 
> Forks are a pain, but they often can be in the long run a benefit. This
> is especially so if the parent project has gone dormant, which it sounds
> like it for at least one of the cases.

I think viewnior's case is not so bad. Upstream did give good reasons
for embedding the library (and changing it), he also was, and still
is, willing to incorporate his changes into the official library. The
problem is that I and upstream have no response from the official
library Authors. It has been dormant for 3 years now. Additionally
viewnior will drop the support for their fork around April.

I think it is worth uploading viewnior now anyway. If you somebody
could sponsor the upload I would be grateful. All distros have this
great image browser but we. 


-- 
Pozdrawiam,
Dariusz Dwornikowski, Assistant
Institute of Computing Science, Poznań University of Technology
www.cs.put.poznan.pl/ddwornikowski/
room 2.7.2 BTiCW | tel. +48 61 665 29 41



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: