| 1 |
On 2 April 2013 13:48, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> but what's the problem with keeping it and not breaking older |
| 4 |
>> upgrade paths? |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> This whole discussion seems a bit academic. Somebody pointed out that |
| 8 |
> we have a version of bash we might not need any longer. If by some |
| 9 |
> miracle the bash maintainers weren't already aware of it, they are |
| 10 |
> now. If they want to keep it around for some reason, who cares? |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> There is enough bikeshedding when it comes to treecleaning the |
| 13 |
> packages that aren't being maintained. I don't think we need to |
| 14 |
> debate the merits of the packages that are. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Rich |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I couldn't agree more. It is getting really annoying having to debate |
| 20 |
package removals every other day. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Regards, |
| 24 |
Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer |
| 25 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang |
Archives