On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 10:18:00PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote: > On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 20:48:43 +0000 > Bart Martens <ba...@debian.org> wrote: > > > On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 10:21:39PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > > Le dimanche 24 juin 2012 à 20:42 +0200, Arno Töll a écrit : > > > > What makes 42 window manager acceptable but not 43? > > > > > > Who said 42 is acceptable? > > > > The neglected ones should be removed. If they're all well maintained and > > all > > used, then 43 is acceptable, in my opinion. > > There is general agreement that neglected ones should be removed, it > just comes down to someone doing the work and making that assessment.
True. > If > you're interested, file the RM bugs in time for wheezy. You question those 42 implementations, so you can analyse them, file RM bugs where appropriate, and write a justification for rejecting #43. > > Feel free to re-use a similar measure/approximation for "neglect" as I > blogged about for the measure/approximation of "rubbish". (Linked from > my homepage below.) If that text reflects consensus, then feel free to make http://qa.debian.org/howto-remove.html point to that text. > > With any objective analysis of the current 42, I find it impossible to > believe that all 42 would re-qualify. Good, you seem to have already started with analysing those 42 implementations. > > Of course, someone who wanted to introduce #43 may be the person in > the right place to do the analysis. This person "may be in the right place to do the analysis", but I don't think that this person must do that analysis. > > It isn't a small task - if it doesn't get done for wheezy it's not that > bad but The coming freeze period may be a good time for spending time on removals by anyone interested. > it does seem justified before #43 arrives. It is not bad/wrong that you want that analysis to be done now. > I'd expect that the > process itself shows that #43 isn't actually needed at all and that > whatever is desired can be achieved by patching one of the existing > ones. Yes, the analysis may result in the conclusion that #43 is not needed in Debian. But please don't reject #43 just because nobody (not you, not the ITP submitter, not any volunteer) has compared it with the 42 other implementations. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120625062421.gb17...@master.debian.org
