On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 14:07:16 +0100 Markos Chandras <hwoar...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 2 April 2013 13:48, Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Alexis Ballier > > <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> but what's the problem with keeping it and not breaking older > >> upgrade paths? > >> > > > > This whole discussion seems a bit academic. Somebody pointed out > > that we have a version of bash we might not need any longer. If by > > some miracle the bash maintainers weren't already aware of it, they > > are now. If they want to keep it around for some reason, who cares? > > > > There is enough bikeshedding when it comes to treecleaning the > > packages that aren't being maintained. I don't think we need to > > debate the merits of the packages that are. > > > > Rich > > > > I couldn't agree more. It is getting really annoying having to debate > package removals every other day. Please take your time to read again. There is no bikeshedding nor debate in: - X is not needed anymore because of reasons R - maybe it's needed for case Y - case Y is not supported - it doesn't hurt to support it I am very well aware that 'case Y' may not even be possible because of tons of other problems and was only pointing out that 'reasons R' were incomplete. It is getting really annoying to have non-technical comments pop in purely technical discussions ;) Alexis.
