Re: SQL on CMUCL/SBCL and Debian

[email protected] writes:

>> I think it's fair to say it's not really maintained.  The last
>> released version is much different from what the onShoreD developers
>> are working with.  
>
> That's rather unfortunate. Wouldn't it be fair then to mention this
> on the website and the bugtracker as well? I hate patching software that
> seems to be a dead end ...

It would be fair, sure, but I'm not really in a position to dispose of
the software in this way.  As for mentioning it in the bugtracker, I
don't really think that's feasible, known Bugzilla.  It's used to file
issues on other (unrelated) software as well.

> Since you seem to be related to onshored: is there any reason for
> this?

Lack of time I think.  But I really don't know and I shouldn't
speculate and possibly spread FUD.  The best I can do it to try to get
the main developer engaged in this conversation.

> Could you need help? Looking at the licence i think there would be no 
> problem for me to fork of my own branch but i consider forking as a last
> resort -- it seems like an awfull waste of resources (but then it looks
> like UCSQL allready forked without anyone realizing it).

Well, it started as a fork of MaiSQL in the first place, didn't it?

> I have no problem maintaining it but i'm not a registered Debian
> maintainer ...

The problem of upstream maintainership is the important problem.  I
can handle the Debian packaging duties for now until we find another
Debian maintainer.

-- 
...Adam Di Carlo...<[email protected]>.......<URL:http://www.onshored.com/>