On 02/01/2013 12:20 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > On 01/02/2013 12:11, Rich Freeman wrote: >> I do think it is a loss for Gentoo if we start removing packages >> simply because they don't change (which is all a dead upstream means - >> it isn't always a bad thing). > > The problem is that a package that doesn't change _will_ bitrot. Full stop. > > Trying to pretend that the problem does not exist, that an unmaintained > package is just as fine as a maintained one is stupid and shortsighted, > and explains why I have 1600 bugs open...
Making up new situations up like cross-dev, Gentoo/Prefix, or jet another cluttered C compiler should not doom working software. I agree on your testing effort and practice, but compliance with the weirdest of all setups shouldn't be ultimate reason. -- Michael Weber Gentoo Developer web: https://xmw.de/ mailto: Michael Weber <[email protected]>
