| 1 |
On Thu, 2018-08-30 at 20:36 +0200, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: |
| 2 |
> Michał Górny schrieb: |
| 3 |
> > > So maybe mask it, but not remove? |
| 4 |
> > > |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > Maybe it's time you realize that if you want something to stay, then you |
| 7 |
> > need to actually *take it* and *fix it*. Keeping clearly broken stuff |
| 8 |
> > so that every user could try jumping through a few hoops to build it has |
| 9 |
> > no value. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> I think it is a valid concern that removal of packages may sometimes be |
| 12 |
> overzealous, and to better keep packages in the tree as long as they are |
| 13 |
> useful and workarounds exist for build/runtime problems. Just in case of |
| 14 |
> gnash there is really no benefit in keeping it. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
It may make sense if there is some developer caring enough to actually |
| 18 |
put those workarounds in the ebuild, rather than expecting every single |
| 19 |
user trying to build it find them himself (and hope he's got all |
| 20 |
of them, and the right set). |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Best regards, |
| 24 |
Michał Górny |
Archives