1 |
On 6 June 2013 11:32, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
2 |
> IAN DELANEY posted on Thu, 06 Jun 2013 17:55:16 +0800 as excerpted: |
3 |
> |
4 |
>> # Ian Delaney <idella4@g.o> (06 Jun 2013) |
5 |
>> # Masked for removal in ~ 30 days. Upstream inactive dev-python/elixir |
6 |
> |
7 |
> Where's the bug reference one would normally expect to see with such an |
8 |
> announcement? |
9 |
> |
10 |
> AFAIK, simply inactive upstream hasn't traditionally been enough to |
11 |
> trigger removal, as long as the package still builds and has no serious |
12 |
> bugs, and is still either legally mirrored and redistributable, or |
13 |
> remains legally available from an otherwise inactive upstream. |
14 |
> |
15 |
> Of course if there's serious bugs (including that it's no longer |
16 |
> available to build in the first place), that's an entirely different |
17 |
> matter, but then there should be a reference to such bugs in the |
18 |
> announcement/mask, and there was no such reference in this case. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> -- |
21 |
> Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
22 |
> "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
23 |
> and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
24 |
> |
25 |
> |
26 |
|
27 |
I agree. |
28 |
|
29 |
If upstream inactivity is the only reason to remove it, then don't! |
30 |
|
31 |
-- |
32 |
Regards, |
33 |
Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer |
34 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang |