On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 07:28:07AM -0700, 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. Agreed, there's no reason to kill it entirely. Let people opt-in if they wish to install it later & understand the cost/benefit tradeoff. Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
