On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 09:14:15PM +0200, Marcin Owsiany wrote:
> Maybe I'm missing something, but what was the reason for filing #909352 as
> serious? Looking at #892016 it does not seem like it was the cause of the
> segfault? Or was it?
No.
> If not, then getting rid of squeak-plugins-scratch sounds more like a
> wishlist cleanup request to me than a serious bug.
"package is completely useless" tends to be treated as RC.
> All the more that
> removing squeak-plugins-scratch from testing will cause scratch to be
> removed, which is not a great outcome for those using it.
>
> Can you please provide a rationale or downgrade the severity?
Downgrading the severity wouldn't make sense.
If it is intentional that squeak-plugins-scratch provides only plugins
that are already in squeak-vm, then this bug should be closed with an
explanation why this is intentional.
If it is not intentional that squeak-plugins-scratch provides only
plugins that are already in squeak-vm and it is no longer needed,
then fixing the two reverse dependencies is trivial.
> Marcin
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
