Re: Rationale for package removals?

[Thomas Dodd <ted@cypress.com>]

Mike A. Harris wrote:

>On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, Thomas Dodd wrote:
>
>  
>
>>>No, not really.  The removals aren't formally documented 
>>>anywhere, so finding out the reason for a specific removal 
>>>involves determining who removed it and asking them.
>>>      
>>>
>>That sounds like a process problem.
>>Any additions/removals should be documented.
>>    
>>
>
>Fair enough.  I think documenting the fact a package was removed, 
>and what alternatives there are is sufficient.  And for _some_ 
>packages, perhaps a reason.  I don't think we need to justify 
>every single software removal though.  Because quite frankly, 
>  
>
Of course not. But if there was a reason, at least tell us.

>in the year 2002 and people do not want to be told "elm was 
>removed because it sucks, use mutt or pine or evolution or 
>something that is actually maintained".  Just to make up an 
>  
>
More likely: "elm is nort maintained anymore. Try Pine or mutt"

Or a "Dropped due to lake of author maintainance" sestion
since that's likely the cause for 75% or more. and a simple
"elm" "pine or mutt" table  of apps/packages and replacements

>Indeed, and by removing Xconfigurator, people will now file 
>requests for enhancement for these missing features (just like 
>  
>
>you're about to most likely <grin>) so that we can add these 
>
They were never added to Xconfigurator either. About the only RFE
I would have is Include xf86cfg, or at least ALL the functionality it has.
I'm usually using newer versions of X/DRI and the kernel. I usebuild the
SRPM and build myself (and don't file bugs since my setup is unsupported:)

>features.  Otherwise people would use it and then say "damn, this 
>sucks, I'll just use Xconsuckurator instead" and the problem 
>never gets fixed.
>  
>
I always thoughh Xconfigurator sucked too.I liked XF86Setup.
It had problems, but looked like a good start.

>>I agree. XF-3.3.x was kept too long.
>>    
>>
>You're on my Christmas card list now.  ;o)
>  
>
Of course I was using the Rawhaide XF86-4.0 tree as soon as it
was up. And 2.3 kernels before 2.4 was released. Now
if only 2.5 would become usable...

>>Is there some other software in the distro that does what xmorph does?
>>    
>>
>No idea.  If I had to hazard a reasonable guess, I would say 
>emacs probably replaces xmorph.  ;o)
>
Hmmm..... lisp might be the best way to write morphing code :)
Too bad I never understood the difference in car and cdr :(

    -Thomas



_______________________________________________
Limbo-list mailing list
Limbo-list@redhat.com
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/limbo-list