On Sun, Sep 22, 2002 at 11:46:49AM -0500, Drew Scott Daniels wrote: > On Sat, 21 Sep 2002, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > On Sat, 21 Sep 2002, Drew Scott Daniels wrote: > > > The packages builds fine on stable but doesn't on unstable and thus is > > Thus it should be removed from unstable, since upstream is dead, it is > > broken, and the maintainer does not want it and won't fix it. > I didn't disagree. You should read my proposal for a "removed" section and > perhaps the alike threads. > > IF you care about it, adopt it. Otherwise, let it die peacefully... > The "removed" section should contain only orphaned packages. What's the point of taking up disk space on all of our mirrors for packages that not even the MAINTAINER thinks are worth keeping around? It's one thing to keep packages around when someone no longer has time to maintain it; but when the Debian developer most familiar with the package tells us that it's bad software, he should be listened to. If you believe an orphaned piece of software deserves to be kept around *ON ITS OWN MERITS*, then get involved, speak up, and adopt it. Proposals that would tie our hands and require us to become sourceforge-like in our dedication to useless software do not benefit real users. Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpjKk9JdeQM3.pgp
Description: PGP signature