On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 15:08:13 -0800 Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: ...snip... > 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? > > I'm sure there's at least a certain amount of low-hanging fruit that > no-one would really mind getting rid of. I think the problem would be coming up with a acceptable criteria for detecting 'truely abandoned' packages. I mean, I'm a maintainer for the Fedora apg package. Last upstream release was 2003. I very rarely touch it. Yet, from time to time I still use it here, I suspect, but do not know that others install and use it. It has no bugs currently opened against it. It's not failed a mass rebuild. The last time I touched it was to move it to use systemd unit files (it can optionally run a network service to return it's data). Is this a package that should be removed for being abandoned? kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
