Morten Kjeldgaard wrote:
On 06/12/2008, at 15.47, Barry deFreese wrote:
Obviously I was exaggerating purposely.
Yes, but, you know, exaggerating the position of others in a forum
like this is not really constructive. In fact, it signals that you've
run out of arguments.
Give me a break.
I raised a -- I think -- valid concern that certain libraries can't
just be removed just because they're "old" or not used anymore by most
Debian apps, because they may still be useful to people who are not
Debian Developers or package maintainers. The only argument I've read
from various contributors to the thread is: "we can't just keep every
ancient bit of software that was once shipped." Again, ridiculing my
position doesn't justify yours.
No one is ridiculing you to my knowledge, that certainly isn't my
intent. This kind of issue goes on constantly. It happened with
wxwidgets, the gnome1 stuff, as I mentioned libnet0, and even to a
smaller degree just within the games team with clanlib. We were holding
on to an old version of clanlib for one game.
However, earlier you said:
BTW, I don't care if GTK+ 1.2 stays or goes but I do care about
unmaintained stuff hanging around.
Now that is a true concern, but OTOH it is a tangible problem that
could be solved. So, if this is the case, why not try to solve the
problem of maintenance for the software in question? I am speaking for
GTK+ 1.2, I'll let others speak for software they care for. Btw, I
can''t find GTK+ 1.2 on the Orphaned list.
Cheers,
Morten
I wasn't talking about GTK+ 1.2 specifically. I'm talking about many of
it's r(b)depends such as imlib, gnome-libs, etc in case GTK goes. Say a
major security bug is found withing GTK. Now you have at least two
dependent packages with lots of depends themselves that are effected but
are unmaintained.
Anyway, I'll shut up now as I said, I don't care if it stays or goes.
Barry
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
