(sl) Yet again: Current package status updated

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

On 15.10.2008 01:21, Marc Bradshaw wrote:
> 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.

sl removed from CVS

CU
knurd