On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 09:00:27AM +0100, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote: > On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 03:58:31PM -0800, Martin Quinson wrote: > > I completely agree. I didn't meant that all the packages with epoch should > > check for it. I more wanted to get rid of the cruft in the packages doing > > the test. Why ? Well, for no real reason, in fact. > > Well, only a thought, but the use of such a test in the preinst, could > mean the maintainer is not revisioning his/her package, so a sort of > 'informative' mail may be sent.
Some maintainers may well feel that there's no reason to remove a perfectly working test. All it means is that the package has been around for a long time. There are better ways to tell if a package is unmaintained (like, er, the last maintainer upload in the changelog and the number of bugs ...). > I'm quite new to the list, but shouldn't the qa group handle even > these task? With the least possible priority, though. I agree with the last sentence more than anything else I've read in this thread so far. :) -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
