[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
  Web www.spinics.net

Re: Rationale for package removals?

On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, John wrote:

>Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 11:05:36 +0800
>From: John <valhalla@computerdatasafe.com.au>
>To: limbo-list@redhat.com
>Content-Type: text/plain;
>  charset="iso-8859-15"
>List-Id: Discussion of the Red Hat Linux 'Limbo' beta
>    <limbo-list.redhat.com>
>Subject: Re: Rationale for package removals?
>On Monday 09 September 2002 22:09, Thomas Dodd wrote:
>> 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
>So far as I can see gpm hasn't been maintained in two years. Surely, RH isn't 
>about to drop that?
>The question should not be so much as whether it's maintained as whether it's 
>A quick scan of email on my V account shows people are using it.

It's a package by package basis.  shapecfg hasn't been updated in 
3 or more years.  It doesn't _need_ updating though either.  It 
just works.

gpm has bounced around maintenance-wise, but that is quite a bit 
different from shapecfg which is unmaintained.  Likewise, some 
other package can be unmaintained and be very buggy and require a 
lot of work to keep in the distro.

Each package is it's own.  The reason for removal of one package 
for being unmaintained, and another that is unmaintained staying 
is due to different circumstances in each of the given packages, 
as well as other criterion.

Mike A. Harris		ftp://people.redhat.com/mharris
OS Systems Engineer
XFree86 maintainer
Red Hat Inc.

Limbo-list mailing list

[Kernel]     [Red Hat Install]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

Powered by Linux