Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If they require *any* maintenance, they are a waste of our time. QA has
> hundreds of packages to maintain, most of which have far, far more users.
> (Some have several thousand popcon installations.)
Um, great. I've been quite happy not to spend
Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> Well, as long as there are no RC bugs, and the packages are in testing,
> I really see no need to remove them.
Well, *if* they are in good shape and require absolutely *no* maintenance,
they should be kept, yes.
Blackbook may be in this situation. (Checks: blackbook is dea
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I'd prefer Debian releases to consist of properly supported packages as
>> much as possible. It's not as if we want to forcibly delete the packages
>> from our user's machines, we'd just acknowledge that they aren't
>>
Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'd prefer Debian releases to consist of properly supported packages as
> much as possible. It's not as if we want to forcibly delete the packages
> from our user's machines, we'd just acknowledge that they aren't
> maintained anymore.
Me too, but I w
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 06:26:51PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> have you been able to submit that bug report now?
Yes. Its now bug #372780.
After changing the mail-program (max os mail --> mutt) it works.
Friendly
Peter Voigt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "
Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> Hi Luk!
Hi Bas
> You wrote:
>
>>> In other words, if almost no-one uses them, does it matter if the packages
>>> are of decent quality? Also, if almost no-one uses them, how do you know
>>> they're of bad quality?
>> It does matter if they are of decent quality as we need
Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> Well, as long as there are no RC bugs, and the packages are in testing,
> I really see no need to remove them. Even if only a few people use the
> package, why annoy them by removing it from Debian?
I'd prefer Debian releases to consist of properly supported packages as
muc
Hi Luk!
You wrote:
> > In other words, if almost no-one uses them, does it matter if the packages
> > are of decent quality? Also, if almost no-one uses them, how do you know
> > they're of bad quality?
>
> It does matter if they are of decent quality as we need to support them
> (mirrors, infr
Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Luk Claes wrote:
>> How can we be sure the packages are of decent quality if almost noone
>> uses them? How can we be sure there are (almost) no unreported RC bugs
>> for instance?
>
> If a tree falls in a forest, and no-one is there to hear it
This one time, at band camp, Luk Claes wrote:
>How can we be sure the packages are of decent quality if almost noone
>uses them? How can we be sure there are (almost) no unreported RC bugs
>for instance?
If a tree falls in a forest, and no-one is there to hear it, does it make a
sound?
How can yo
Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> Hi Nathanael!
>
> You wrote:
>
>> "Very low" is defined as less than 20 installations. Votes are noted only
>> for
>> packages which aren't "no files".
>> With 13184 installations reporting to popcon, 20 installations represents
>> less than one installation in 500.
>> I
Hi Nathanael!
You wrote:
> "Very low" is defined as less than 20 installations. Votes are noted only for
> packages which aren't "no files".
> With 13184 installations reporting to popcon, 20 installations represents
> less than one installation in 500.
> I think all of these are candidates for
12 matches
Mail list logo
