>>>>> "Mo" == Mo Zhou <lu...@debian.org> writes:
Mo> Hi -devel, I've just filed an RM(#935769) bug against
Mo> src:tensorflow and I believe this is the most appropriate choice
Mo> at this stage. For packages that would easily draw attention
Mo> from the media, not providing them would be much better than
Mo> providing something much inferior than the users expected
Mo> (Recall "difficulty ... DL framework" and "conda ...").
I'm speaking as an individual here, not as the DPL.
I actually think it's valuable to provide Debian packages even if the
performance is not what users would want.
Provided that people are working on the packages and improving them.
Doing so makes it easier to free things up in the future, makes it
easier to understand what we don't have, etc.
I here that you no longer find it valuable to do this work. And if
there aren't maintainers who are interested in working to improve the
situation, I definitely think it is best to remove the package.
I think the part of your message I'm disagreeing with is the desire to
discourage people from reintroducing the package in the future.
I think you've done a good job of documenting the obstacles. I think
anyone who wants to reintroduce the package should consider the
obstacles you've documented.
But either if because they have work-arounds for those obstacles or
because they see it as worth their time without work arounds, I think
that's OK.
Although, I'll admit that they're probably going to have to do
somethingf about a build system. We don't have a lot of use for
packages that don't build:-)
I think what I'm trying to say is that it's great to step away from work
when you don't see value It's great to document problems others would
face in the future.
But the bar for telling others not to do things they find valuable is
probably a lot higher.
As always thanks for all your work and especially for writing up your
results!
--Sam
