On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 10:06:34PM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 13/12/12 06:49 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > > For example, glibc-2.9 and gcc-2.95. I think that if we are going > > to keep things this old in the tree we need a good reason for > > them. > > iirc, gcc-2.95 and linux-2.4 (still used for some embedded systems) > play best together.
I'm not sure how strong this argument is because we don't have any 2.4 kernels in the tree, and I am wondering why we still have a linux-headers-2.4. > > I'm wondering if packages assigned to maintainer-needed should be > > looked at and removed since no one cares about them after they have > > sat there for a certain amount of time? > > They are, aren't they? treecleaners has been doing a pretty good job > of that iirc. At least, those that have had bugs filed against them > without being addressed... There seems to be a pretty high number of unmaintained packages in the tree if you look at hwoarang's response to this thread, so I'm not sure how that is going. William
pgp3vduZsbwQq.pgp
Description: PGP signature
