Re: [gentoo-dev] bash-3.1 stable

[Markos Chandras]

On 2 April 2013 14:34, Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 14:07:16 +0100
> Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> wrote:
>
>> On 2 April 2013 13:48, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Alexis Ballier
>> > <aballier@g.o> wrote:
>> >> but what's the problem with keeping it and not breaking older
>> >> upgrade paths?
>> >>
>> >
>> > This whole discussion seems a bit academic.  Somebody pointed out
>> > that we have a version of bash we might not need any longer.  If by
>> > some miracle the bash maintainers weren't already aware of it, they
>> > are now.  If they want to keep it around for some reason, who cares?
>> >
>> > There is enough bikeshedding when it comes to treecleaning the
>> > packages that aren't being maintained.  I don't think we need to
>> > debate the merits of the packages that are.
>> >
>> > Rich
>> >
>>
>> I couldn't agree more. It is getting really annoying having to debate
>> package removals every other day.
>
> Please take your time to read again. There is no bikeshedding nor
> debate in:
> - X is not needed anymore because of reasons R
> - maybe it's needed for case Y
> - case Y is not supported
> - it doesn't hurt to support it
>
> I am very well aware that 'case Y' may not even be possible because of
> tons of other problems and was only pointing out that 'reasons R' were
> incomplete.
>
> It is getting really annoying to have non-technical comments pop in
> purely technical discussions ;)
>
> Alexis.
>

Here we go again. Fine, keep arguing about the really important
question "why old X is in the tree when new X is stable".
Did anyone actually consider to ask the maintainers instead of opening
a public debate on this? I guess no, because
bikeshedding in the mailing list is so much better.

--
Regards,
Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer
http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang