Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID: <F76C9B2DA2FC4C4CA0A18E288BBCBCF708217EEF@nihexchange24.nih.gov>
From: "Buchbinder, Barry (NIH/NIAID)" <BBuchbinder AT niaid DOT nih DOT gov>
To: "'cygwin AT cygwin DOT com'" <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: RE: BUG: cygwin implementation of Debian package tools
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 08:31:44 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-IsSubscribed: yes

On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 10:45:PM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 06:09:34PM -0400, Buchbinder, Barry (NIH/NIAID)
wrote:
>>Out of curiosity, why is the policy to remove a package just because 
>>the maintainer has abandoned it?  If there are no outstanding problems, 
>>what would be the harm of leaving it in until a problem emerges?
>
>Out of curiousity, why would you respond to a message where the subject
>contains the word "BUG" and then opine that someone is removing a package
>which has no outstanding problems?

Thanks for your response.  The answer to your question is probably lack of
thought on my part.  I've wondered about this policy for a long time and
just this time decided to ask the question.  I hadn't connected it to
context:  No one will notice that a maintainer has disappeared unless there
is some sort of issue/bug with the package.

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/