| 1 |
On 02:39 Mon 28 Mar , Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: |
| 2 |
> Where did this come from? My entire argument was based around the fact |
| 3 |
> that unmaintained packages that may or may not be broken fundamentally |
| 4 |
> constitute a *bad* experience for the user. If we cannot guarantee |
| 5 |
> that bugs for a package will be fixed, we should not take up the |
| 6 |
> responsibility of the package! |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Which is worse? Suddenly pulling a package from underneath the feet of |
| 9 |
> users when it inevitably breaks or telling them upfront that it's |
| 10 |
> *completely not* supported by us so they can do something about it |
| 11 |
> before it breaks? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Here's the key point: "may or may not." Arbitrary criteria with no |
| 14 |
relevance to whether a package works for users are not helpful. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
The mere existence of a maintainer-needed package doesn't mean it should |
| 17 |
be removed. The existence of the same thing with numerous serious, |
| 18 |
unfixed bugs or tinderbox errors means something much different. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
We have the ability to do these kinds of intersections today, since our |
| 21 |
wonderful bug wranglers normally insert the $CAT/$PN into summaries and |
| 22 |
Diego has tinderbox bugs filed. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Thanks, |
| 26 |
Donnie |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Donnie Berkholz |
| 29 |
Sr. Developer, Gentoo Linux |
| 30 |
Blog: http://dberkholz.com |
Archives