From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1Hbg9Z-0001Xy-Id for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 11 Apr 2007 16:58:42 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l3BGvhli014863; Wed, 11 Apr 2007 16:57:45 GMT Received: from smtp01.atlngahp.sys.nuvox.net (smtp-out1.atlngahp.sys.nuvox.net [70.43.63.18]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l3BGt5TE011489 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2007 16:55:06 GMT Received: from [10.3.23.140] (216.215.202.4.nw.nuvox.net [216.215.202.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp01.atlngahp.sys.nuvox.net (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l3BGlgEH031138 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2007 12:47:42 -0400 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New metastructure proposal From: Chris Gianelloni To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <20070411171520.15bdbaf1@snowflake> References: <20070410193249.GD7991@ubik> <1176307455.8755.78.camel@inertia.twi-31o2.org> <20070411171520.15bdbaf1@snowflake> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-J0aDzC56055N7m/SiKSV" Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 12:47:41 -0400 Message-Id: <1176310061.8755.96.camel@inertia.twi-31o2.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.3 X-Archives-Salt: 3d171c79-e70c-4574-8109-302fccce8b06 X-Archives-Hash: 7b81c85487acd50759e07fb6bbb7190b --=-J0aDzC56055N7m/SiKSV Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 17:15 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 12:04:15 -0400 > Chris Gianelloni wrote: > > > Just because stuff isn't maintained doesn't mean that it's not being > > > used, and if it's not broken I fail to see why it should be removed. > >=20 > > I've seen many times people say "well, this hasn't been touched > > since..." when a package has no bugs. Of *course* it hasn't been > > touched. It just works. I wouldn't be surprised if there were quite > > a few packages that fall into this category. >=20 > Except that the tree is a moving target. The obvious example being a > package with X dependencies that hasn't been touched for four years... Except that package would have bugs. It would have broken dependencies. Again, I said packages that work. Being untouched and broken is wholly different from being untouched and working. --=20 Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation --=-J0aDzC56055N7m/SiKSV Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBGHREtkT4lNIS36YERAi2mAJwLV8bpudDzx0ItA4l8PF/vyiQoGgCgjmCK fHw9UVgO8QQWJYw9T4eEhB4= =CxzO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-J0aDzC56055N7m/SiKSV-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list