(sl) Yet again: Current package status updated

Marc Bradshaw packages at marcbradshaw.co.uk
Wed Oct 15 01:21:56 CEST 2008

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.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.rpmfusion.org/pipermail/rpmfusion-developers/attachments/20081015/4d03c15e/signature.bin

More information about the rpmfusion-developers mailing list