On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 01:18:56PM +0100, Søren Hauberg wrote:
> ons, 16 02 2011 kl. 10:11 +0100, skrev Thomas Weber:
> > On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 10:07:46AM -0500, Nir Krakauer wrote:
> > > I don't personally do bioinformatics, but since the package
> > > corresponds to (a small part of) a Matlab toolbox it would be nice to
> > > keep it for possible future elaboration.
> >
> > I didn't mean to remove it. But quite obviously nobody cares about the
> > package: This test was probably failing all through Octave 3.2's
> > lifetime.
>
> Should we have some way of signalling that a package is no longer
> maintained? We could write "Orphaned" as the package maintainer, would
> that be good?
I don't know. Will people care more easily for a package if it's
officially orphaned? The concept of 'orphaning' exists in Debian, but
then we have a far more stringent interpretation of maintainership.
Ultimately, the problem is not about the content of the 'Maintainer'
field, but about the quite limited number of developers compared to the
number and diversity of packages (I know, I know, I'm preaching to the
choir here).
Thomas
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE:
Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen.
Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle.
Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb
_______________________________________________
Octave-dev mailing list
Octave-dev@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev
