7 Oct
2010
7 Oct
'10
5:07 a.m.
Roman Haefeli wrote:
On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 22:07 +0200, ydegoyon@gmail.com wrote:
but obviously the intention is to abandon some libraries
That is certainly not true. You're looking from the wrong perspective. It's not the case that someone decides _not_ to include certain libraries, it's more that some people are interested in doing the work to get certain libraries included. In the case of pdp there is not even a need for that effort, since it is already included, as IOhannes pointed out.
this is absolutely wrong, this package is old and doesn't respect pd-extended rules at all ...
so stop believing superficial information, thank you ( the name pd-pdp doesn't mean nothing at all )
ciao, sevy