Tobias Nygren <tnn%NetBSD.org@localhost> writes: > On Sun, 15 Mar 2015 11:35:29 -0400 > Greg Troxel <gdt%ir.bbn.com@localhost> wrote: > >> My usual request: proposing deletion should explain when the >> to-be-deleted packages were EOLed, or superceded, and why it's fair to >> say to anyone still using them that they are delinquent for not updating >> (that's a bit harsh, but captures the point). So it would help if you >> could write a deletion proposal that allows people who don't understand >> vlc to judge the merits. I have no idea when the last vlc1 release >> was, and when the first vlc2 release was for which "this is stable - >> everybody should upgrade". > > Not arguing with the above but equivalently there should be clear and > documented motivation as to why multiple versions of a package were > required in the first place. The exists very real maintenance overhead > from pkgsrc-security@'s point of view. Valid reasons would be broken > ABI, large changes to the UI, removed features, removed platform > support. A dubious reason is "this is a major update and I'm not really > sure it will work for everyone". Agreed; we should only add extra versions when there's a good reason. > Old versions that have an actual use case should at least be MAINTAINed > by someone other than pkgsrc-users@ if upstream has dropped support. I can see where you're coming from, but we don't have a general notion of objecting to pkgsrc-users@ as maintainer, and I don't see the benefit in singling out this case.
Description: PGP signature