> On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 10:27:40 -0500, JC (Jon) wrote:
>> I'm not suggesting ddate is mission-critical, I just want reasons for
>> removal or re-packaging to be well thought-out, not simply "gosh, I
>> sue that, so. . .". Otherwise we'll start dropping games.
> Sure (and not limited to games, which are in optional packages, however).
> We do that all the time, if a package maintainer no longer considers
> a game (or package in general) worthwhile, and if nobody else volunteers
> to take over a package. Of course, you're free to adapt as many orphans
> as you like, whether actively maintained upstream or ancient.
> Eventually, you'll be in the same situation, where you would like to
> drop something, be it a completely optional package or a plugin[*] you
> consider useless, close to useless, or just broken.[*] or a program
> with alternative user-interfaces
Absolutely! I've been there. It's not the retirement of software I
object to in this case, though I prefer to avoid that, it's the arbitrary
deviation from upstream. If the deviation isn't arbitrary, I generally
All that aside, I'd be sad to see ddate go, but that's totally beside the
> devel mailing list
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love
devel mailing list