Morten Kjeldgaard wrote:
On 06/12/2008, at 15.47, Barry deFreese wrote:Obviously I was exaggerating purposely.Yes, but, you know, exaggerating the position of others in a forum like this is not really constructive. In fact, it signals that you've run out of arguments.
Give me a break.
I raised a -- I think -- valid concern that certain libraries can't just be removed just because they're "old" or not used anymore by most Debian apps, because they may still be useful to people who are not Debian Developers or package maintainers. The only argument I've read from various contributors to the thread is: "we can't just keep every ancient bit of software that was once shipped." Again, ridiculing my position doesn't justify yours.No one is ridiculing you to my knowledge, that certainly isn't my intent. This kind of issue goes on constantly. It happened with wxwidgets, the gnome1 stuff, as I mentioned libnet0, and even to a smaller degree just within the games team with clanlib. We were holding on to an old version of clanlib for one game.
I wasn't talking about GTK+ 1.2 specifically. I'm talking about many of it's r(b)depends such as imlib, gnome-libs, etc in case GTK goes. Say a major security bug is found withing GTK. Now you have at least two dependent packages with lots of depends themselves that are effected but are unmaintained.However, earlier you said:BTW, I don't care if GTK+ 1.2 stays or goes but I do care about unmaintained stuff hanging around.Now that is a true concern, but OTOH it is a tangible problem that could be solved. So, if this is the case, why not try to solve the problem of maintenance for the software in question? I am speaking for GTK+ 1.2, I'll let others speak for software they care for. Btw, I can''t find GTK+ 1.2 on the Orphaned list.Cheers, Morten
Anyway, I'll shut up now as I said, I don't care if it stays or goes. Barry