Re: Work-needing packages report for Sep 6, 2002
On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 12:53:18AM +0200, tomas p wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Russell Coker wrote:
> > > If maintaining it doesn't actually require any work as you suggest, then why
> > > would you object to being the maintainer?
> > He is not saying that at all. Just existing is effort mind you. Nothing
> > else is needed. Add additional taks as f.ex. being responsable for s.th.
> > or maintaining attention for something increases that effort. Even if you
> > do not "do" anything.
> Interesting. This is exactly the argument for removing unmaintained
> packages: just by existing they cause more work for certain people.
I assume naively that it's mostly software (bts, mirroring, etc. ) that
takes care of those packages. In what way do they cause work for people
that are not directly interested in those packages?