On Thu, 2016-04-07 at 01:05 +0200, Steffen Möller wrote: > > On 06/04/16 21:19, Wookey wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > .. perhaps be more aggressive in > > > > removing software that's no longer useful and just lies in the archive > > > > dormant. > > The fact that Debian has a lot of software is a genuine benefit. Just > > because stuff is old, does not mean it is no longer useful. The > > problem is that we don't really know how to distinguish between > > old-and-just-cruft and old-and-still-handy. > The popcon stats may help. > > For the packages in Debian Science and Debian Med I tend to think that > it accommodates a bunch of packages that mostly are of historic value > now. People may use them to compare how well their new methods compare > against the old stuff [...]
Given the low quality and lack of unit tests in many scientific applications, how confident can we be that the 'old' packages (that have now built with newer toolchains and libraries) actually still produce the same results they used to? If we are not, even that historic value is lost. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Who are all these weirdos? - David Bowie, reading IRC for the first time
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
