On Fri, 23 Oct 2020, Jan Palus wrote: > On 23.10.2020 14:16, Jan Rękorajski via pld-devel-en wrote: > > On Thu, 27 Aug 2020, atler wrote: > > > > > commit 6e87a2d1330eca8358a494c62b4e85986b95a50b > > > Author: Jan Palus <[email protected]> > > > Date: Thu Aug 27 18:35:24 2020 +0200 > > > > > > compatibility package for legacy, unmaintained apps > > > > > > libupnp.spec => libupnp1.6.spec | 32 ++++++++++++++++++-------------- > > > 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) > > > > Please try to avoid creating packages like these. Especially for just 3 > > other packages. Fixing those dependant packages seems quite easy, and > > it's better than keeping outdated libs. > > Respectfully disagreed. I had a quick look into porting effort back than > and it turned out it would take way more time than I'm willing to spend > on ancient packages I don't care about. Maintenance-effort-wise I'd say > either of: > > * drop ancient packages > * keep ancient versions of dependencies > > is the way to go. With patches in place we have to maintain them with > every new libupnp release.
Dropping such stuff or disabling broken functionality is my preferred solution :) A short email to the list would suffice with a note that packages X Y Z are too old and if anyone cares they should update them. -- Jan Rękorajski | PLD/Linux SysAdm | baggins<at>pld-linux.org | http://www.pld-linux.org/ _______________________________________________ pld-devel-en mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
