Hi Michael! You wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 10:55:32AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > >But a bulk "anything that is orphaned and has a low popcon number must > >be useless" is incorrect. > > You've made this assertion several times, it's still unsubstantiated. > The process of identifying potentially problematic packages and bringing > them up for discussion should in itself prevent good packages from being > removed--I don't understand what that isn't sufficient in your mind. The OP proposed to remove packages that are a) orphaned, and b) have less than 20 user in popcon. It is these criteria I object to, not the process of removing obsolete packages. As you seem to agree with that, it really seems that we agree here. BTW: it would be nice if you could take a bit less agressive tone in the discussion. That would maybe improve the atmosphere a bit. Nobody is attacking you personally, we are just trying to have a civil conversation (at least I am). Thanks, Bas. -- Kind regards, +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Bas Zoetekouw | GPG key: 0644fab7 | |----------------------------| Fingerprint: c1f5 f24c d514 3fec 8bf6 | | [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] | a2b1 2bae e41f 0644 fab7 | +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
