| 1 |
On 02/01/2013 07:07 AM, Michael Weber wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 02/01/2013 12:20 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 01/02/2013 12:11, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> I do think it is a loss for Gentoo if we start removing packages |
| 5 |
>>> simply because they don't change (which is all a dead upstream means - |
| 6 |
>>> it isn't always a bad thing). |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> The problem is that a package that doesn't change _will_ bitrot. Full stop. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> Trying to pretend that the problem does not exist, that an unmaintained |
| 11 |
>> package is just as fine as a maintained one is stupid and shortsighted, |
| 12 |
>> and explains why I have 1600 bugs open... |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Making up new situations up like cross-dev, Gentoo/Prefix, or jet |
| 15 |
> another cluttered C compiler should not doom working software. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> I agree on your testing effort and practice, but compliance with the |
| 18 |
> weirdest of all setups shouldn't be ultimate reason. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Being broken on one architecture should not prevent a package from being |
| 22 |
available to others where it works. You just do not keyword things on |
| 23 |
architectures where they are broken. This is why we have keywording. |
Archives