Peter Gordon wrote: > On Sun, 2007-05-13 at 01:19 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >> Supporting this would be a huge policy violation, and not so merely as >> a technicality. I suggest simply removing ion support from the main >> tree, and sticking it in an overlay that comes with a big warning >> telling users that they cannot expect any level of QA for those >> packages. > > Could we not simply rename it, as has been suggested many times thus > far? Then we could mask ion3 and let people know why and what it was > renamed to, et al.
As far as I can tell, we try not to be "upstream" as such; just to stick closely to the package(s) upstream puts out until the situation becomes untenable. I agree with Ciaran; removing it is a good idea as long as upstream's licensing scheme is retarded. Just keeping it in the tree (under a new name) until it completely stops working eventually doesn't sound like a better idea than removal.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
