On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 10:03:42PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
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:
No, what is unsubstantiated is your characterization of what is
happening. One of things that happens *every time* this sort of
discussion comes up is that someone starts creating straw men along the
lines of "what if some important package gets removed because of some
arbitrary criteria; it would be horrible, so we should complain a lot
about the criteria and then do nothing". And yet, a list of packages was
generated and comments about the list were solicitied. If the
arbitrary criteria were used to silently and automatically remove
packages then the "every package is sacred" crowd would have a leg to
stand on with that line of reasoning--as it is, it's silly.
Mike Stone
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
