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.