Paul de Vrieze wrote: > On Thursday 24 August 2006 20:46, Alec Warner wrote: >> Robert Cernansky wrote: >>> What bothers me also, is that it has not plugin design like >>> xmms. Support for plugins is very good because lot of people can write >>> plugins for lot of things. This is why people do not want to switch >>> from xmms because thanks to plugins it have so many features that >>> currently no player is able to overcome it. >> So port the plugins from xmms to $NEW_CLIENT, since xmms is an old piece >> of crap. > > Who cares. It works (mostly), it is lightweight, and there are enough people > using it to keep it in the tree. As long as things don't break beyond repair > I see no reason whatsoever to remove xmms (or any other largely unmaintained > package in the tree). > > Paul >
This is one of those things (along with qa and security) that the community needs to decide. Does stuff that works but has terrible qa stay in the tree? Does security stuff stay in the tree, but masked? Should xmms be masked? We have no real way of "deprecating" a package, aside from leaving it in the tree with a masking reason saying "deprecated and unsupported." at which point not everything in the tree becomes supported. The Treecleaner project that I run is based on the assumption that broken stuff in the tree is bad, and I try to remove the really old stuf broken stuff first. However I aspire to eventually "catch up" and get to the currently broken packages. So which way will you have it? Or is this more of a pragmatic stance on the tree? -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
