Michael Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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.
Wow, and yet you agree with it: > 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. Notice here that you are saying that the plan is not a bulk assumption, but rather, individualized examination. If it is actually done, great! (Why was it necessary to repeat this four times?) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
