Bas Zoetekouw wrote: > Hi Michael! > > You wrote: > >> 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. >> 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. > > The OP proposed to remove packages that are a) orphaned, and b) have > less than 20 user in popcon. It is these criteria I object to, not the > process of removing obsolete packages. This is only the starting list, there were other criteria [1] mentioned already a couple of times before a package would be filed for removal! I don't get why that has to repeated every time again? Cheers Luk [1]: (a) aren't ITAed, and (b) have been orphaned for more than, say, three months (c) don't have some special reason why popcon would be unrepresentative (d) don't have any other special reasons to stay in Debian -- Luk Claes - http://people.debian.org/~luk - GPG key 1024D/9B7C328D Fingerprint: D5AF 25FB 316B 53BB 08E7 F999 E544 DE07 9B7C 328D
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature