From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pjotr Prins Subject: Re: [PATCH] xscreenshot and imagefile Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2015 10:09:20 +0200 Message-ID: <20150801080920.GA16871@thebird.nl> References: <87a8uf2c94.fsf@netris.org> <87oaiue4hh.fsf@netris.org> <20150730070405.GA9314@thebird.nl> <20150731175907.GA9347@debian> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56868) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZLRsW-0005jO-2O for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Aug 2015 04:10:48 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZLRsS-0005ho-Of for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Aug 2015 04:10:47 -0400 Received: from mail.thebird.nl ([95.154.246.10]:49235) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZLRsS-0005cR-9U for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Aug 2015 04:10:44 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150731175907.GA9347@debian> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Andreas Enge Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 07:59:07PM +0200, Andreas Enge wrote: > On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 09:04:05AM +0200, Pjotr Prins wrote: > > Unmaintained, defunct or nasty software gets removed eventually. > > Lately I am a bit fed up with software that does not build on hydra (be it > on mips or even mainstream architectures), with the last release dating > sometimes a decade back and that nobody bothers to fix (without an active > upstream, that is not a very rewarding activity anyway). Some of these > might not even currently have users, if the initial submitter has walked > away. So I think we should not hesitate to remove software a bit more > aggressively in the future. I think this agrees with my statement ;). Aggressive removing of broken software is a pretty good idea. > Given the facts that Mark researched (two lonely commits a year ago, not > even a single release) xscreenshot seems to fall into the "unmaintained" > category, and I am not exactly enthusiastic about adding it. It not being > in Debian, while not the only criterion, is another hint. Yeah. But it is up to the submitter, indeed. If he maintains it, who are we to argue? Pj. --