Re: Orphaned packages with very low popcon numbers
Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 10:55:32AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>>But a bulk "anything that is orphaned and has a low popcon number must
>>be useless" is incorrect.
>
> You've made this assertion several times, it's still
> unsubstantiated.
Wow, and yet you agree with it:
> The process of identifying potentially problematic
> packages and bringing them up for discussion should in itself prevent
> good packages from being removed--I don't understand what that isn't
> sufficient in your mind.
Notice here that you are saying that the plan is not a bulk
assumption, but rather, individualized examination.
If it is actually done, great!
(Why was it necessary to repeat this four times?)
Reply to: