On 02/02/2013 12:17 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò > <flamee...@flameeyes.eu> wrote: >> On 01/02/2013 23:52, Rich Freeman wrote: >>> >>> For those who are doing the treecleaning, please do yourself a favor >>> and point out the actual show-stoppers so that you don't have a war on >>> your hand every time you mask something. :) >> >> Or maybe, you know, stop starting idiotic flamewars on principles >> assuming that all of QA is out to ruin your life, which seems to happen >> pretty often to you. > > The argument was made that unmaintained packages that have dead > upstreams should be removed. I explained why this was bad policy. > This is not a flamewar. >
+1 Dead upstream is no reason alone to treeclean any package. A reason would be a severe runtime or buildtime bug, that needs a non-trivial fix, but no upstream to take care of that.
