--- Comment #12 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)gmail.com> 2014-10-05 23:56:39 CEST
(In reply to comment #11)
(In reply to comment #10)
> (In reply to comment #9)
> > (In reply to comment #8)
> > > Unfortunately the maintainer of gen has no interest in retiring the
> > > but yes if a conflict must be avoided, I'll patch it to not conflict
> > Hm.. it doesn't make sense to have two packages that do the same thing
> > come from the same source, but please patch around the conflict.
> Oh I appologise if it wasn't clear; gen-GS is a Fork of gens, with cleaner
> code, a bunch of merged fixes and patches, and improved portability. I proposed
> replacing gens with gensgs but the rpmfusion maintainer seemed uninterested and
> closed the bug.
I'm gens maintainer. I really don't like when people puts words in my mouth.
This is what I said at the time:
Hi Andrea, I appollogize if there is a communication barrier/error, I'm not
trying to put words in your mouth. But yes, you indeed closed the bug because
it was a fork and you showed no interest in maintaining it.
Michael, please see the bug Andrea posted, in case I misconstrued things.
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.