Re: Packages still in Potato located
On Sun, Mar 24, 2002 at 11:07:02AM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2002 at 07:56:24PM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 22, 2002 at 06:06:19PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > > They should probably be examined to see if they have many bugs,
> > > and should be removed altogether, or if someone wants to adopt
> > > them.
> > Some of them just have not required an update since potato was released.
> > A couple of them I recognized as being fine as they are. I do not have
> > the list in front of me, but a sweeping generalization is not generally
> > wise in this case.
> The only "sweeping generalization" that I made was "they should probably be
> examined". What is unwise about examining a bunch of packages to see if
> they are in good shape?
I think some people (including me at first) misparsed your statement
above as "They should probably be examined ... and should be removed
altogether ..." rather than "... to see if they have many bugs and
should be removed altogether ...".
Colin Watson [firstname.lastname@example.org]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org