On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 06:50:50PM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On Thu, 2012-01-19 at 15:30 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Sat, 2012-01-14 at 19:12 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > > Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > > Keeping packages around with no maintainers or people handling their > > > > bugs is poor for everyone. > > > > > > Why? If I, as a user, really need a certain piece of software, I'd rather > > > have an unmaintained package than none at all! Worst case, I can't use the > > > package at all, in which case I'm still no worse off than with no package at > > > all! > > > > I disagree. The existence of a package triggers certain assumptions: the > > package will be maintained and keep working. That's the point of there > > *being* a package, after all. So if there's a package for something, I > > don't check for security updates for that 'something' myself. I figure > > the packager is doing that for me. > > > > So if I wind up with an unmaintained package installed, my security has > > just been reduced. > > > > Yes, I agree with this completely. If something is not being maintained > in Fedora, it's better to retire it. Then a user who wants that piece of > software will have two options: > 1) They can build it and maintain it themselves on their own system(s) > 2) They can choose to build and maintain it for Fedora by unretiring it. 3) They can choose another distro that contains the package(s). D. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
