| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 01/02/13 06:20 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: |
| 5 |
> On 01/02/2013 12:11, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 6 |
>> I do think it is a loss for Gentoo if we start removing packages |
| 7 |
>> simply because they don't change (which is all a dead upstream |
| 8 |
>> means - it isn't always a bad thing). |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> The problem is that a package that doesn't change _will_ bitrot. |
| 11 |
> Full stop. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Trying to pretend that the problem does not exist, that an |
| 14 |
> unmaintained package is just as fine as a maintained one is stupid |
| 15 |
> and shortsighted, and explains why I have 1600 bugs open... |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
True -- but then, the reason for that package's removal is one or many |
| 19 |
of those bugs, not because upstream is dead and the package is old and |
| 20 |
might at some point in the future have bugs due to bitrot. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 24 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAlELwj4ACgkQ2ugaI38ACPCa1QEAggm0vXETySkPrLJD3Lquvc4Q |
| 27 |
Kkt7ft0dBamMGH86bE4BAL1S1X7T9dZZS88on2GhAZKy81iY8G8VWch8GUXw3Q5k |
| 28 |
=6TbE |
| 29 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives