Re: Orphaned packages with very low popcon numbers

[Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org>]

On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 10:03:42PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> 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:

No, what is unsubstantiated is your characterization of what is 
happening. One of things that happens *every time* this sort of 
discussion comes up is that someone starts creating straw men along the 
lines of "what if some important package gets removed because of some 
arbitrary criteria; it would be horrible, so we should complain a lot 
about the criteria and then do nothing". And yet, a list of packages was 
generated and comments about the list were solicitied. If the 
arbitrary criteria were used to silently and automatically remove 
packages then the "every package is sacred" crowd would have a leg to 
stand on with that line of reasoning--as it is, it's silly.

Mike Stone