On 28/10/15 10:51, Florent Daigniere wrote: > On Tue, 2015-10-27 at 21:47 +0100, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: >> Am Sonntag, 25. Oktober 2015, 15:13:06 schrieb Matthew Toseland: >>> I disagree. We should take reasonable steps to avoid breaking >>> unofficial >>> plugins, but we shouldn't let it cripple us. We are not Microsoft. >>> And >>> db4o is unmaintained upstream... >> >> Let’s avoid doing another “hey, we’re growing again, how about >> breaking people’s setup?” ← we already did that a few times. It was >> pretty frustrating. >> >> There’s no gain from removing db4o except for ideological pureness, >> which has no value for our users. >> > > More software -> more maintenance burden -> more bugs -> less time > spent on fixing things users actually use. > > What's the part you don't understand? > > Right now, keeping db4o means headaches with packaging and build-system > integration. It's one of the few dependencies we have that uses > Maven... > > Nobody is happy with it; the ideology purists, the packagers nor the > people who actually use it (xor's plugins). They all want change > (removal or upgrade depending on who you ask); unless you volunteer to > handle the actual changes, I'm not sure I understand why you'd get a > vote on what will happen. >
FWIW scrapping db4o will also help the debian package actually enter Debian at some point - it's one less dependency to have to bundle (and argue with the FTP masters about). X -- GPG: 4096R/1318EFAC5FBBDBCE git://github.com/infinity0/pubkeys.git _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
