Re: [Fink-devel] ipe6 update?

[Dean S. <do...@sc...>]

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:55:35 -0400, Alexander Hansen wrote:

> Even though the "6" seems unnecessary, there's no reason _not_ to
> continue using it--anybody who wants to test this can avoid
> collisions simply by using their local tree.  Moreover, since it has
> a -shlibs splitoff and the libraries look to be identical to those

I was more offering the packaging as a proof of concept that the
latest version of ipe doesn't seem to have any technical build
problems (although obviously I'm on 10.4).  I'd fix it up if I was
maintaining it for the official tree, which I assume is the subtext
in:

> If the listed maintainer doesn't respond within a reasonable
> interval, we should assume that he no longer has any interest in
> maintaining the package.

At which time I should send an ITP?

-- 
Dean