On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 11:17:52PM +0200, Damyan Ivanov wrote:
-=| Jonathan Yu, Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 01:53:37PM -0500 |=-On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Maximilian Gass <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:> This module is no longer on CPAN, the upstream site is gone, its > popcount is only 30 and it has no reverse dependencies.> > Should we keep it?No. I vote we file an RM against it -- having no reverse dependencies and being unmaintained upstream is sufficient for me. I don't think we should be keeping unmaintained or poorly maintained software in Debian.Keeping would mean we take over upstream. Although possible, this would be unusual.
Not necessarily: it is possible to maintain packages in Debian even with the upstream sources gone stale or missing.
- Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Description: Digital signature