| 1 |
On Tuesday, 4 August 2020 00:23:44 CEST Peter Stuge wrote: |
| 2 |
> Jimi Huotari wrote: |
| 3 |
> > # Jimi Huotari <chiitoo@g.o> (2020-08-04) |
| 4 |
> > # No consumers since 2015, and no known stand-alone use. |
| 5 |
> > # Removal in 30 days. |
| 6 |
> > dev-libs/liboobs |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Wut - isn't that a really poor reason to remove from the tree? :\ |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Why not just keep it unless there is an actual technical problem? |
| 11 |
> (Security, maintainability, etc.) If there is, then please mention it. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
If you know a reason to keep it, please mention it. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Otherwise, a non-high-profile library that had no consumers in 2015 has no |
| 16 |
business of staying in tree in 2020. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I rather have the current maintainer, fully aware of its redundancy, send |
| 19 |
those last-rites instead of effectively asking a poor random dev in the future |
| 20 |
to completely unnecessarily waste time on maintenance or do the necessary |
| 21 |
research before removing it. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Regards |
Archives