| 1 |
Michał Górny schrieb: |
| 2 |
>> I think it is a valid concern that removal of packages may sometimes be |
| 3 |
>> overzealous, and to better keep packages in the tree as long as they are |
| 4 |
>> useful and workarounds exist for build/runtime problems. Just in case of |
| 5 |
>> gnash there is really no benefit in keeping it. |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> It may make sense if there is some developer caring enough to actually |
| 9 |
> put those workarounds in the ebuild, rather than expecting every single |
| 10 |
> user trying to build it find them himself (and hope he's got all |
| 11 |
> of them, and the right set). |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
If you mean, putting these workarounds as elog message, maybe. |
| 14 |
But putting them as code is not always possible, as it may require changes in |
| 15 |
other packages or similar. |
| 16 |
And sometimes, there were building and working packages masked for removal |
| 17 |
just because they lacked a maintainer. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Best regards, |
| 21 |
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn |
Archives