Re: Work-needing packages report for May 25, 2001
On Fri, 25 May 2001, Colin Watson wrote:
> >On Fri, 25 May 2001, Sam Couter wrote:
> >> Should bugs be filed against ftp@debian.org to remove packages that have
> >> been orphaned longer than some number of days? I believe this has been done
> >> in the past as a once-off type of thing, but should it become an automatic
> >> thing with each mailout of the wnpp report?
> >
> >No! Why should we remove packages only because noone is adopting them?
> >This doesn't mean that this package has no users. I adopted many packages
> >to avoid that they get removed (and I sent RFAs immediately after adopting
> >them) and I got mails of several users that were happy that a package they
> >are using wasn't removed (and many of these packages already have new
> >maintainers).
> >
> >OTOH:
> >When you can tell about big problems (e.g. "cannot build from source" or
> >security problems) that cannot be easily resolved that's a good reason to
> >consider the removal of an orphaned package.
>
> "Is useless" or "better alternatives available" are also good reasons,
>...
"better alternatives available" is often subjective. There are still
people using vim although emacs is available for a long time. ;-)
*duckandrun*
cu
Adri "no, I don't want to start an editor discussion" an
--
A "No" uttered from deepest conviction is better and greater than a
"Yes" merely uttered to please, or what is worse, to avoid trouble.
-- Mahatma Ghandi
Reply to: