On 02/01/2013 07:07 AM, Michael Weber wrote: > On 02/01/2013 12:20 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: >> On 01/02/2013 12:11, Rich Freeman wrote: >>> I do think it is a loss for Gentoo if we start removing packages >>> simply because they don't change (which is all a dead upstream means - >>> it isn't always a bad thing). >> >> The problem is that a package that doesn't change _will_ bitrot. Full stop. >> >> Trying to pretend that the problem does not exist, that an unmaintained >> package is just as fine as a maintained one is stupid and shortsighted, >> and explains why I have 1600 bugs open... > > Making up new situations up like cross-dev, Gentoo/Prefix, or jet > another cluttered C compiler should not doom working software. > > I agree on your testing effort and practice, but compliance with the > weirdest of all setups shouldn't be ultimate reason. >
Being broken on one architecture should not prevent a package from being available to others where it works. You just do not keyword things on architectures where they are broken. This is why we have keywording.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
