| 1 |
Peter Gordon wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 2007-05-13 at 01:19 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Supporting this would be a huge policy violation, and not so merely as |
| 4 |
>> a technicality. I suggest simply removing ion support from the main |
| 5 |
>> tree, and sticking it in an overlay that comes with a big warning |
| 6 |
>> telling users that they cannot expect any level of QA for those |
| 7 |
>> packages. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Could we not simply rename it, as has been suggested many times thus |
| 10 |
> far? Then we could mask ion3 and let people know why and what it was |
| 11 |
> renamed to, et al. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
As far as I can tell, we try not to be "upstream" as such; just to stick |
| 14 |
closely to the package(s) upstream puts out until the situation becomes |
| 15 |
untenable. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I agree with Ciaran; removing it is a good idea as long as upstream's |
| 18 |
licensing scheme is retarded. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Just keeping it in the tree (under a new name) until it completely stops |
| 21 |
working eventually doesn't sound like a better idea than removal. |
Archives