<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 01/23/2014 03:26 AM, Richard Hughes
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAD2FfiH1GO+xAVpgavqYH4gYrVcxGTW+9ot3k6m01VsQE2Tejw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
I don't think we need to drop any packages, unless keeping that
package is actually making our life harder in a significant way.
What
I think it's makes a lot of sense doing is -hiding- the
applications
that are abandonware. Users that really want some low level tool
using
GTK-1 already know the package name, and are likely very familiar
with
the command line.<br>
</blockquote>
The term 'hiding' conveys a wrong implication that abandonware is
necessarily an embarrassment to be kept locked up in the attic. I
can think of several programs that I use daily that are simple
enough so that there's not much development happening to them. For
example, the 'units' program, which I showed recently to some
mechanical engineers who use Linux and they went 'OMG this is so
cool, how come we didn't know about it even though we've been using
Linux for ten years'.<br>
<br>
I do agree with you that we need better 'truth in labeling': the
most useful and attractive-looking programs should be prominently
featured and super-easy to find, and the known-buggy programs should
display caveats---but I think it's important that everything is
easily discoverable, rather than hidden away.<br>
<br>
In conclusion, I think the appdata idea is very good, and can do
what both of us want to accomplish, with the right approach.<br>
</body>
</html>