Am 24.01.2014 00:08, schrieb Adam Williamson: > On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 16:55 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: >> Am 23.01.2014 16:49, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson: >>> >>> On 01/23/2014 01:48 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: >>>> So, one possibility would be to move less-maintained packages to a separate >>>> repository tree still included as Fedora and enabled by default >>> >>> That wont reduce the bugs reported against it... >> >> well, why not remove all packages so no bugs get reported at all? >> >> consider packages for removal because upstream does not jump around >> and release at least once per year a new version is.... hmmm... i >> must not say the words in public.... > > I think this discussion is going down a needlessly divisive path that it > doesn't need to at all. agreed > The discussion is assuming we have precisely two choices: > > * Rigidly and with no exceptions throw out software which meets some > arbitrary approximations for determining 'maintained or abandoned' the problem is how this would be defined > * Change nothing before doing damage in remove packages working for people who are using them and do no harm to others i would prefer that > I don't think that's true at all. Would anyone on either side of the > debate object to an approach which tried to identify software that was > truly abandoned either up- or down-stream - not just 'software that no > longer required changing' - and throw that out? but who is really in the position to make that decision and how would he do it honestly > I'm sure there's at least a certain amount of low-hanging fruit that > no-one would really mind getting rid of but how make the decisions and who do the work of investigation? the only thing i can imagine is * does not pass the mass-rebuilds for new releases or dependencies * nobody cares to look why anything which goes abvoe this may do more harm as it could have benefits and no, in doubt open bugs only counted has bo value because it would need a deeper look if they are valid at all or only wishful thinking of the reporter or a RFE not declared as such
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
