| 1 |
On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 14:07:16 +0100 |
| 2 |
Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 2 April 2013 13:48, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Alexis Ballier |
| 6 |
> > <aballier@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
> >> but what's the problem with keeping it and not breaking older |
| 8 |
> >> upgrade paths? |
| 9 |
> >> |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > This whole discussion seems a bit academic. Somebody pointed out |
| 12 |
> > that we have a version of bash we might not need any longer. If by |
| 13 |
> > some miracle the bash maintainers weren't already aware of it, they |
| 14 |
> > are now. If they want to keep it around for some reason, who cares? |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > There is enough bikeshedding when it comes to treecleaning the |
| 17 |
> > packages that aren't being maintained. I don't think we need to |
| 18 |
> > debate the merits of the packages that are. |
| 19 |
> > |
| 20 |
> > Rich |
| 21 |
> > |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> I couldn't agree more. It is getting really annoying having to debate |
| 24 |
> package removals every other day. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Please take your time to read again. There is no bikeshedding nor |
| 27 |
debate in: |
| 28 |
- X is not needed anymore because of reasons R |
| 29 |
- maybe it's needed for case Y |
| 30 |
- case Y is not supported |
| 31 |
- it doesn't hurt to support it |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
I am very well aware that 'case Y' may not even be possible because of |
| 34 |
tons of other problems and was only pointing out that 'reasons R' were |
| 35 |
incomplete. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
It is getting really annoying to have non-technical comments pop in |
| 38 |
purely technical discussions ;) |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Alexis. |
Archives