2013/10/17 Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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 aroundThere's no reason to kill the package entirely. Some people still
>> 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.
want to use it despite the current issues. So just don't install it
by default. Reducing everything down to absolutes isn't helpful.
And if we get this fixed https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841434
those who are using prelink can remove it and end up with a sane system
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
