Sub-package dropped upstream

Michael Schwendt mschwendt at
Thu Jan 9 21:45:44 UTC 2014

On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 22:20:10 +0100, Alec Leamas wrote:

> Yes, still it's an interesting issue... perhaps one count how many which
> actually are installed,

"Installed and used actively" would be more interesting.

Especially with regard to optional plugins, which perhaps are not
loaded/executed at runtime automatically. For example, multimedia users
follow instructions found on the web that lead to installing all codec
packages, whether they need them or not. Watching statistics you might
think "hey, there are WavPack or Musepack users", but maybe they never
use files of that type.

> but many problems also here: users privacy/opt-in,
> easily spoofed, infrastructure.

And it wouldn't force a packager in any way, maybe serve as some minor
influence only.

It would not be the first plugin/subpackage that has been discontinued
during the lifetime of a distribution.

If a package were considered "popular enough", the packager would
not want to upgrade the software to a newer version that removes the
package? There are other more important factors when considering a
version upgrade.

And probably most important, you cannot get an obsolete package to
reinstall automatically once it would become available again. User
would need to take notice and reinstall manually (unless packager
plays tricks or makes it a new requirement).

More information about the devel mailing list