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

Re: removal instead of orphaning?

Hi Paul,

On 27-08-16 13:15, Paul Wise wrote:
> The long tail of less used and orphaned packages has value.
> Deletionism is bad on Wikipedia and in Debian too.

Can you also please explain WHY you have this opinion? Because I don't
understand it. I think I understand it for Wikipedia, but why for
Debian? In my opinion we keep to much, but I'd like to be convinced

Maybe I can phrase an alternative question for one of the two cases why
I started this thread: do we have good ways to warn the user when (s)he
is installing (via depends even?) a knowingly unmaintained package? If
not, shouldn't we have those? E.g. maybe an option in apt? If we believe
that we should keep unmaintained packages in the archive for the users
sake rather than removal, I truly believe the user should know without
doing the research.

And how do we balance the work it takes for those doing QA on those
packages (for whatever reason) versus the value mentioned by Paul? As
mentioned so often, popcon has it's value, but is definitely not the answer.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: