On Sun, 2009-04-26 at 11:58 -0400, Martin Owens wrote:
> More usefully would be to assess the bit-rot, number of bugs, any
> critical or security issues which makes it dangerous. [...]
> baring any security issues I see no reason why it should be removed.
> (although I'm sure these things are asses
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 15:02:21 -0400 Martin Owens wrote:
>
>> At the point where Kdvi was removed:
>> - All important features that had been reported as missing in Okular
compared
>> to Kdvi, had now been added to Okular.
>> - Kdvi is unmaintained.
>> - Kdvi is an KDE3 application where a KDE4 rep
> At the point where Kdvi was removed:
> - All important features that had been reported as missing in Okular compared
> to Kdvi, had now been added to Okular.
> - Kdvi is unmaintained.
> - Kdvi is an KDE3 application where a KDE4 replacement exists.
> So those three things combined was the reaso
Hi Martin
On Sunday 26 April 2009 17:58:20 Martin Owens wrote:
> Hey Andreas,
>
> > The fact is, that we don't like to have unmaintained packages in the
> > archive, kdvi in this case is one of them. It was re-introduced in
> > intrepid solely to fill the gap for some features missing in okular. (
2009/4/26 Martin Owens
>
> The other option is to move these things to an "unmaintained" repository
> where users can have the initiative to install things they want but also
> be made aware of it's unmaintained nature (perhaps even encouraging
> developers to maintain it). At least then people w
