Re: Thought about unmaintained package (Net_IRC in this case)

On Tue, 2004-12-14 at 00:48, Sean Coates wrote: > Helgi Þormar wrote: > > Anyway if a developer says he's not going to maintain the package > > anymore, not even bug fixes, and there is a superior package that has > > all the features and more, then I think we should move the bugs to > > suspended until further notice. > > > > We of course need to be able to deprecate in such a way (well just a > > extra field in the package table) so we can make the installer more > > aware that the package is deprecated, so it can give messages like "This > > package has been deprecated, are you sure you want to install [y][N]" or > > something like that. > > Well, FWIW (and I fully understand that my karma around here is > "pending"), I'm +1 (and I also understand that there are more formal > processes than 'tally up the +1's' in PEAR) on this. Package > deprecation, ESPECIALLY when superceded by a superior package, is a fact > of life, and a formal process to facilitate this in a controlled manner > is important, IMO. Yes I fully agree with you, this is a matter the QA will take on when the time comes (lets allow them to finish their current tasks first ;)) Should we wait for touching those bugs for Net_IRC and wait until the QA has made some process around this, or just go for it ? - Helgi