Re: Unmaintained Packages
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 09:51:42AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> neroden@twcny.rr.com (Nathanael Nerode) writes:
> > Goswin von Brederlow said:
> > >If a package has bugs for some time without the maintainer giving
> > >reasons why they are left open its unmaintained or at least badly
> > >maintained.
> >
> > <troll>
> > Evidently glibc is unmaintained, or at least badly maintained.
> > Anyway, dpkg is clearly unmaintained by this standard.
> > </troll>
>
> And is being rewritten from scratch anyway.
>
> All hail dpkg2.
Oh, joy, let's take a stable and generally pretty reliable codebase,
throw it all out, and write something new because we couldn't be
bothered to improve what was there instead. What a good idea! </sarcasm>
If you can't tell, I'm allergic to this "let's rewrite it from scratch"
thing that seems to be popular lately. If you have something good that
has some problems, don't try to solve those problems by throwing it out
and starting again! All you'll do that way is come up with a whole new
set of problems. The only excuse for rewriting from scratch is when the
old code is unmaintainable, and (on the basis of the small hacks I've
made to dpkg in the past) I don't see any evidence that it should be
unmaintainable by competent people.
If dpkg2 is a from-scratch rewrite of dpkg1, I might just have to fork
dpkg1 and maintain it myself so that I can keep on using it.
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
Reply to: