| 1 |
On 22 Jan 2016 12:04, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 18:45:20 +0100 Michał Górny wrote: |
| 3 |
> > If I see a package that clearly doesn't build or otherwise simply |
| 4 |
> > doesn't work, could not have worked for past 3 years, are you forcing |
| 5 |
> > me to waste a time reporting a bug to no maintainer who could fix it? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> sure, don't waste your time and just delete it so that nobody can track |
| 8 |
> why it was removed or even attempt to fix it. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> > Because to me, the lack of any open bugs is a clear evidence that |
| 11 |
> > the package is not only unmaintained, but also unused. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> lack of open bug means there is no known bug; anything else is pure |
| 14 |
> supposition |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
this. if anything, it sounds like i need to keep open a trivial bug |
| 17 |
for a package to keep people from wrongly proactively tree cleaning. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
the # of users of a package is irrelevant. if there are (real i.e. not |
| 20 |
"typo in message" bugs) open, then that's a diff story. |
| 21 |
-mike |
Archives