On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 16:28:07 +0200, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 7:22 AM, Paul Wouters <pwouters@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 17 Oct 2013, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > >> I agree there remains some work on prelink itself and some packages > >> around to make prelink relevant again > > > > I don't mean to pick a fight with you Jan, but you are the only person > > actively defending prelink right now. When even you reach the above > > conclusions and cannot put in the time, and the maintainer isn't looking > > at filed bugs for over a year, the only real answer is to turn prelink > > into a dead.package for now. > > There's no reason to kill the package entirely. Some people still > want to use it despite the current issues. So just don't install it > by default. Reducing everything down to absolutes isn't helpful. This is exactly my opinion which I have already expressed several times in this thread. prelink is useful on some systems (including mine) but I agree it currently does more harm than good for average/default Fedora user. Jan -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
