Re: Work-needing packages report for Sep 6, 2002
On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 00:15, Martin Wheeler wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Michael Stone wrote:
> > a package removed
> > from the current archive will still be available in its previous
> > incarnation, should someone want to pick it up (or install the old
> > unmaintained crap.)
> I'm puzzled.
> Why is unmaintained == crap ?
> Every day, I use a a reasonably complex package of perl scripts which to my
> knowledge has not been maintained since 1996. Because it works. And it
> most certainly isn't crap. Even if Perl has advanced quite a bit in that
> time. And it isn't in Debian because of licensing funnies; but if it had
> been you're saying it would have been junked by now because it's
> unmaintained? And I would have had to have found something else to replace
> it, if I didn't want to maintain it myself?
If maintaining it doesn't actually require any work as you suggest, then why
would you object to being the maintainer?
I do not get viruses because I do not use MS software.
If you use Outlook then please do not put my email address in your
address-book so that WHEN you get a virus it won't use my address in the