Sub-package dropped upstream
kad at blegh.net
Thu Jan 9 22:43:04 UTC 2014
On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 02:38:50PM -0800, Jorge Gallegos wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 10:45:44PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > 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.
> it'd be interesting to know how debian QA takes metrics like these:
> I haven't looked but pretty sure these are not recorded via some
> unauthorized callback (being debian and all), perhaps these are just
> rough download statistics.
Hah!, found it right after I sent the email: http://popcon.debian.org
> > > 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).
> The package may not come back any time soon, and I actually have no idea
> if patching it back from the old sources would be feasible (I haven't
> looked to what extent it is broken.) If it does come back in the future
> I understand it should be named something else... should that potential
> future package _also_ obsolete this one? (I don't think so?)
> > --
> > devel mailing list
> > devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> > Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the devel