Re: Orphaned packages with very low popcon numbers
Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> writes:
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 05:18:13PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Yes. Deleting information is a big step.
>
> Luckily we aren't doing that, since the information itself is still
> available in archives.
Whose archives? Ours? Perhaps if you would look at what you snipped,
where I said:
By contrast, if a package is deleted that shouldn't be deleted, it
costs a lot of work to reverse, and becomes harder and harder to
reverse the more time has gone by.
The point is that if you delete information, *as time goes by* it gets
harder and harder to reverse. Fewer archives have it, it starts to
slide into oblivion.
>>I was myself bit by this, when the gnome maintainers decided that
>>gnome-1 was obsolete, and started deleting things, despite there being
>>packages (such as gnucash) which depended on the libraries in question.
>
> Luckily this is also not at issue, since dependencies are being looked
> at.
Yes, but the OP *didn't say that*.
Reply to: