package EOL

[Callum Lerwick]

On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 09:48 +1200, Michael J. Knox wrote:
> He said that is up to the debian developer as to how long they want to 
> maintain the package. He went on to say that as long as the application 
> function and was free from release critical bugs, then debian will 
> continue to ship it. He also said, that if a upstream vendor is not 
> maintaining the application anymore (or seems not to be) then its up to 
> the packager to fix bugs etc.
> 
> I am not sure if other agree on that approach or not.

+1

Y'all are over-thinking this. The upstream status of a package simply
doesn't matter. What matters is if it is maintained in *extras*. If a
packager wants to spend their time and energy maintaining a package
that's abandoned upstream, that's their business. There's no reason to
remove a package simply because its abandoned upstream.

All that matters is that the package continues to meet the requirements
that *any* package has. If a package has broken deps, or is unusably
buggy, it should be pulled from the repos, no matter what the upstream
status of the package is.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/attachments/20060425/29ef36b6/attachment.sig>