On 02:39 Mon 28 Mar , Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: > Where did this come from? My entire argument was based around the fact > that unmaintained packages that may or may not be broken fundamentally > constitute a *bad* experience for the user. If we cannot guarantee > that bugs for a package will be fixed, we should not take up the > responsibility of the package! > > Which is worse? Suddenly pulling a package from underneath the feet of > users when it inevitably breaks or telling them upfront that it's > *completely not* supported by us so they can do something about it > before it breaks?
Here's the key point: "may or may not." Arbitrary criteria with no relevance to whether a package works for users are not helpful. The mere existence of a maintainer-needed package doesn't mean it should be removed. The existence of the same thing with numerous serious, unfixed bugs or tinderbox errors means something much different. We have the ability to do these kinds of intersections today, since our wonderful bug wranglers normally insert the $CAT/$PN into summaries and Diego has tinderbox bugs filed. -- Thanks, Donnie Donnie Berkholz Sr. Developer, Gentoo Linux Blog: http://dberkholz.com
pgpjZzeJgz4hc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
