On Mon, 2006-07-17 at 16:03 -0600, Andreas J. Guelzow wrote:
> I don't think I missed the point. From the practical point of source
> maintenance there is no reason to oppose archive ggv. I am worried about
> the signal this sends to packagers though: GNOME considers ggv outdated
> and it should not be distributed anymore.
I can't think of a distribution that was released after Evince became
usable and ships GGV over Evince. Packagers would be very interesting
in knowing that the software is unmaintained anyway: if they ship it,
they have to fix the bugs. A preferable option is switching to the
maintained alternative.
Ross
--
Ross Burton mail: ross burtonini com
jabber: ross burtonini com
www: http://www.burtonini.com./
PGP Fingerprint: 1A21 F5B0 D8D0 CFE3 81D4 E25A 2D09 E447 D0B4 33DF
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part