[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: mark 'editor' virtual package name as obsolete

Artem Leschev writes ("mark 'editor' virtual package name as obsolete"):
> Virtual package name 'editor' was removed from Authoritative List of
> Virtual Package Names in 1996 year, but it is used at our days. Maybe we
> need to add it to section "Old and obsolete virtual package names",
> which is empty? If yes, we need to file a bug against each package that
> uses it, so this name will be removed from repository. If no, maybe we
> need to add it again in the List?
> I've filed a bug about this on [1].
> [1] <http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=682347>

Of course these kind of leftover wrinkles do little harm.  And in the
case of things removed more recently, they can do some good.  Users
and our derivatives may want to mix old and new versions of packages.

Often that's hard to support well, and I certainly wouldn't say that
we should regard it as a bug (even a valid wishlist bug) if (say) foo
from wheezy doesn't work with bar from etch.  But on the other hand
going around removing compatibility code is something we should only
do when the last user vanished from our own sight a very long time ago
- since our sight is limited.

In this case I haven't checked to see what bits of our own archive
stopped using the virtual package `editor' when.  If indeed uses of it
were eliminated a decade ago the clearly it's fine to remove it.


Reply to: