| 1 |
Paul de Vrieze wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thursday 24 August 2006 20:46, Alec Warner wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Robert Cernansky wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> What bothers me also, is that it has not plugin design like |
| 5 |
>>> xmms. Support for plugins is very good because lot of people can write |
| 6 |
>>> plugins for lot of things. This is why people do not want to switch |
| 7 |
>>> from xmms because thanks to plugins it have so many features that |
| 8 |
>>> currently no player is able to overcome it. |
| 9 |
>> So port the plugins from xmms to $NEW_CLIENT, since xmms is an old piece |
| 10 |
>> of crap. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Who cares. It works (mostly), it is lightweight, and there are enough people |
| 13 |
> using it to keep it in the tree. As long as things don't break beyond repair |
| 14 |
> I see no reason whatsoever to remove xmms (or any other largely unmaintained |
| 15 |
> package in the tree). |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Paul |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
This is one of those things (along with qa and security) that the |
| 21 |
community needs to decide. Does stuff that works but has terrible qa |
| 22 |
stay in the tree? Does security stuff stay in the tree, but masked? |
| 23 |
Should xmms be masked? We have no real way of "deprecating" a package, |
| 24 |
aside from leaving it in the tree with a masking reason saying |
| 25 |
"deprecated and unsupported." at which point not everything in the tree |
| 26 |
becomes supported. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
The Treecleaner project that I run is based on the assumption that |
| 29 |
broken stuff in the tree is bad, and I try to remove the really old stuf |
| 30 |
broken stuff first. However I aspire to eventually "catch up" and get |
| 31 |
to the currently broken packages. So which way will you have it? Or is |
| 32 |
this more of a pragmatic stance on the tree? |
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives