On 2 April 2013 14:34, Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote: > 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. >
Here we go again. Fine, keep arguing about the really important question "why old X is in the tree when new X is stable". Did anyone actually consider to ask the maintainers instead of opening a public debate on this? I guess no, because bikeshedding in the mailing list is so much better. -- Regards, Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang
