On 6 June 2013 11:32, Duncan <[email protected]> wrote: > IAN DELANEY posted on Thu, 06 Jun 2013 17:55:16 +0800 as excerpted: > >> # Ian Delaney <[email protected]> (06 Jun 2013) >> # Masked for removal in ~ 30 days. Upstream inactive dev-python/elixir > > Where's the bug reference one would normally expect to see with such an > announcement? > > AFAIK, simply inactive upstream hasn't traditionally been enough to > trigger removal, as long as the package still builds and has no serious > bugs, and is still either legally mirrored and redistributable, or > remains legally available from an otherwise inactive upstream. > > Of course if there's serious bugs (including that it's no longer > available to build in the first place), that's an entirely different > matter, but then there should be a reference to such bugs in the > announcement/mask, and there was no such reference in this case. > > -- > Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. > "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- > and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman > >
I agree. If upstream inactivity is the only reason to remove it, then don't! -- Regards, Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang
