Re: (sl) Yet again: Current package status updated
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>
> The author answered that debian license is right, I have put the mail
> at > http://www.environnement.ens.fr/perso/dumas/sl-license-mail.txt
>
> So this is definitely for fedora.
k, so how important do we consider sl? And how fast can the review be
done in Fedora?
Or, IOW: Is the consensus then to not import the package to RPM
Fusion, even if that means that users then have no update/install
source until it's reviewed, imported and build in Fedora?
I cannot see any situation where sl could be seen as a critical package
so am quite happy to not import into fusion and have no update/install
until reviewed in fedora.
-M
Attachments:
- signature.asc (application/pgp-signature — 249 bytes)