1 |
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Peter Stuge <peter@×××××.se> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> I find the become-a-dev threshold significant so yes, something stops it.. |
4 |
> |
5 |
|
6 |
So, my personal feeling is that /some/ packages get pulled a little |
7 |
earlier than strictly necessary. However, the fact is that when a |
8 |
package gets treecleaned it is a symptom of a bigger problem. Could |
9 |
some packages stay in the tree an extra six months? That's debatable. |
10 |
However, it doesn't really change the fact that in almost all of |
11 |
these cases something is bound to break for good sooner or later if |
12 |
things don't change. |
13 |
|
14 |
In this particular case upstream is the main problem - it needs to |
15 |
exist for starters (it looks like there is some interest in making |
16 |
this move forward, but C++ expertise or not the maintainer needs to at |
17 |
least start committing some of the known patches after testing them). |
18 |
|
19 |
The only thing I've really done for cuneiform is buy it time. I'll |
20 |
give it best-effort and will genuinely try to fix bugs where able, but |
21 |
it isn't like I get paid to use this package in my day job. The mask |
22 |
takes some of the edge off of the potential security concerns, but |
23 |
sooner or later if upstream doesn't start moving forward they're going |
24 |
to get stuck on some outdated version of some dependency and lead to |
25 |
more serious QA violations. If people really care about packages they |
26 |
have to do something about it. That's basically how FOSS works - you |
27 |
get all this software for free, but it doesn't mean that it was |
28 |
without cost to create it, and for the most part when things break you |
29 |
get to keep the pieces. |
30 |
|
31 |
If your goal is to have more packages in the tree then simply delaying |
32 |
the inevitable won't really accomplish that. |
33 |
|
34 |
Rich |