Re: Bug#484009: removed bugs are marked as 'obsolete'

2008-06-04 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le mercredi 04 juin 2008 à 17:13 +0200, Johannes Wiedersich a écrit : > All agreed for packages that are so unmaintained that it is better to > drop them for good. The situation is different (and maybe more difficult > [1]) if the package is *wanted* in lenny, but just removed by the > release mana

Re: Bug#484009: removed bugs are marked as 'obsolete'

2008-06-04 Thread Johannes Wiedersich
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 2008-06-04 16:31, Charles Plessy wrote: > Our packages are free software, so imperfect ones removed from the > archive can be redistributed in third-party apt repository if there is a > niche for this. This way, the decisions of removal can be prove

Re: Bug#484009: removed bugs are marked as 'obsolete'

2008-06-04 Thread Charles Plessy
Le Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 02:31:22AM -0700, Mike Bird a écrit : > > (2) To a user who wishes to use a working feature of an imperfect > package, Debian is better with the imperfect package than > without: MISSING PACKAGE < IMPERFECT PACKAGE < PERFECT PACKAGE. > This is true even if the

Re: Bug#484009: removed bugs are marked as 'obsolete'

2008-06-04 Thread Pierre Habouzit
On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 09:31:22AM +, Mike Bird wrote: > On Wed June 4 2008 00:59:15 Pierre Habouzit wrote: > > a broken software, or an inadequate one is more a problem to > > me than not having it in Debian. Debian is about quality, not > > quantity. > > (1) Pierre thus asserts IMPERFECT PA

Re: Bug#484009: removed bugs are marked as 'obsolete'

2008-06-04 Thread Johannes Wiedersich
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 2008-06-04 14:09, Riku Voipio wrote: > ...for a certain subclass of _powerusers_ who are willing to > walk through a minefield[1] using buggy software. For more typical > endusers, buggy and unreliable software is a just big source of > frustration.

Re: Bug#484009: removed bugs are marked as 'obsolete'

2008-06-04 Thread Riku Voipio
On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 02:31:22AM -0700, Mike Bird wrote: > (2) To a user who wishes to use a working feature of an imperfect > package, Debian is better with the imperfect package than > without: MISSING PACKAGE < IMPERFECT PACKAGE < PERFECT PACKAGE. > This is true even if the imperfe

Re: Bug#484009: removed bugs are marked as 'obsolete'

2008-06-04 Thread Mike Bird
On Wed June 4 2008 00:59:15 Pierre Habouzit wrote: > a broken software, or an inadequate one is more a problem to > me than not having it in Debian. Debian is about quality, not > quantity. (1) Pierre thus asserts IMPERFECT PACKAGE < MISSING PACKAGE. (2) To a user who wishes to use a working fea