From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-59463-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FF25138010
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 14:01:55 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 73148E096B;
Tue, 2 Apr 2013 14:01:51 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-wg0-f44.google.com (mail-wg0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44])
(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A14DE095B
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 14:01:50 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-wg0-f44.google.com with SMTP id z12so491470wgg.35
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 02 Apr 2013 07:01:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=x-received:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date
:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:content-type;
bh=edVyxoB3TFPKpNWteyF9A0UZe38iDdHXHaANraVwO/M=;
b=EmWPYBOZOnuflQeDKeaMhhBm9DF7wK/e0hbo/F8NDRbyLfo4f4x5EP7uJYMp+L81Ey
w6Al/NraILdoy2vw+AnfBFdrMKhjSxhgXeUWsAiT7aox9TzLV6RydxIgIxTO69VYM66f
lG+N7lpSPwP8obN8di7iPzvkscfmmgEjijEhLT7BGm6xcmflpccaqWnNLd34DnjHYZFK
K6XfhUBEDlJpsnF0nNhUyITN/ZSAA5fOncHzsQ7ma8WFz1FuF3zXaJ9k5m4AydGnZ1sK
cCR3Y6oJbFVC8ZSxwzjov7/glRK8qZR3vfkWoe7+SBOp6IoLXiIBoKPRITK7hmGPqtDq
FWlA==
X-Received: by 10.194.83.33 with SMTP id n1mr22185750wjy.7.1364911309031; Tue,
02 Apr 2013 07:01:49 -0700 (PDT)
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: markos.chandras@gmail.com
Received: by 10.194.121.136 with HTTP; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 07:01:08 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20130402153403.0a85c0a7@portable>
References: <515ACE47.3030206@gentoo.org> <20130402142933.2e76831c@portable>
<515ACFDA.4090605@gentoo.org> <20130402143744.532b4ae8@portable>
<CAGfcS_kEAeAUzOuogZDP06eCEcinSgU5_ZRSARdhif0unUAWqg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAG2jQ8iAtdYRaxjG7s2S5d+od4z7HOZp0p+CvgnryZtFL=2HxQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130402153403.0a85c0a7@portable>
From: Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 15:01:08 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 01IUc2I38nQPb376rGXMjm7Mk-0
Message-ID: <CAG2jQ8h1OfB79z43cqPBRS4b3jaN_WNmsHOJgW6A8TdfvKEHhA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] bash-3.1 stable
To: gentoo-dev <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Archives-Salt: 3f2adb18-d682-4a3b-8b23-0d4dc1a22130
X-Archives-Hash: c50aa5740bc1ef68a8186687693dd02b
On 2 April 2013 14:34, Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 14:07:16 +0100
> Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> On 2 April 2013 13:48, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Alexis Ballier
>> > <aballier@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> >> but what's the problem with keeping it and not breaking older
>> >> upgrade paths?
>> >>
>> >
>> > This whole discussion seems a bit academic. Somebody pointed out
>> > that we have a version of bash we might not need any longer. If by
>> > some miracle the bash maintainers weren't already aware of it, they
>> > are now. If they want to keep it around for some reason, who cares?
>> >
>> > There is enough bikeshedding when it comes to treecleaning the
>> > packages that aren't being maintained. I don't think we need to
>> > debate the merits of the packages that are.
>> >
>> > Rich
>> >
>>
>> I couldn't agree more. It is getting really annoying having to debate
>> package removals every other day.
>
> Please take your time to read again. There is no bikeshedding nor
> debate in:
> - X is not needed anymore because of reasons R
> - maybe it's needed for case Y
> - case Y is not supported
> - it doesn't hurt to support it
>
> I am very well aware that 'case Y' may not even be possible because of
> tons of other problems and was only pointing out that 'reasons R' were
> incomplete.
>
> It is getting really annoying to have non-technical comments pop in
> purely technical discussions ;)
>
> Alexis.
>
Here we go again. Fine, keep arguing about the really important
question "why old X is in the tree when new X is stable".
Did anyone actually consider to ask the maintainers instead of opening
a public debate on this? I guess no, because
bikeshedding in the mailing list is so much better.
--
Regards,
Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer
http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang