potentially unmaintained packages
mattdm at mattdm.org
Thu Apr 15 20:53:48 UTC 2010
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 08:38:52PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > seriously? I don't think I ever said the list was all inclusive.
> And in my original reply I only asked some questions related to
> packages being considered "potentially unmaintained".
Is there a secret definition of "potentially" which I am unaware of and
which is causing grief here?
Matthew Miller <mattdm at mattdm.org>
Senior Systems Architect -- Instructional & Research Computing Services
Harvard School of Engineering & Applied Sciences
More information about the devel