Re: Orphaning Unbuildable Packages (fpm)
On Sun, 22 Sep 2002, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 22, 2002 at 07:24:50PM +0200, tomas pospisek wrote:
> > On Sun, 22 Sep 2002, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > > What's the point of taking up disk space on all of our mirrors for
> > ****************
> > > packages that not even the MAINTAINER thinks are worth keeping around?
>
> > Please reread the thread from last week [1]. Try to understand.
>
> > > Proposals that would tie our hands and require us to become
> > > sourceforge-like in our dedication to useless software do not benefit
> > *******
> > > real users.
>
> > To repeat once again:
>
> > Software is useful when it's used. In order to keep the discusion
> > real: yes, I'm using fpm. See "the point"?
>
> Then adopt it, or offer arguments against its removal, or continue using
> the version from stable, which is equivalent to having an unmaintained
> package anyway. But when one of our developers tells us "this software
> that I packaged is no longer useful", there is no reason we should do
> anything by default other than taking the maintainer's word for it.
Please cite the exact phrase where Brian said fpm is no longer useful.
I also can be a demagog, don't force it.
> The burden is not on Debian to show that a piece of software has no
> users.
I've just said I'm using it. What's your problem?
*t
--
to
ma
s
p
Reply to: