On 13 September 2016 at 21:24, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 13 September 2016 at 16:03, Michael Catanzaro <mcatanzaro@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > OK this is the most frustrating of a TON of frustrating parts of this > conversation. > > 1. WHY DO WE SHIP PACKAGES THAT WE 'KNOW' AREN'T MAINTAINED? > 2. Why are people 'maintainers' of such packages if they know upstream > is dead and they aren't going to maintain things. Sometimes an application can be working though upstream is dead and keeping it going on a best-effort basis can provide some functionality that wouldn't exist otherwise. Of course library churn and general moving on of other technology will eventually kill it despite a maintainer's best efforts. This doesn't apply for security issues where providing software with known unpatched problems may be actively harmful. -- imalone http://ibmalone.blogspot.co.uk -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
