Subject: Re: Do we ever retire packages?

From: Chris Fearnley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 17:28:45 -0400 (EDT)

'Michael Meskes wrote:'
>
>[email-masked] writes:
>> I have argued before that a2ps and a2gs are effectively replaced by
>> genscript, and that we should remove them. I think a similar case could be
>> made for xosview as we now have procmeter. 
>> 
>> Opinions?
>
>Remove them.

Move them to project/obsolete or some such.

-- 
Christopher J. Fearnley            |    Linux/Internet Consulting
[email-masked], [email-masked]       |    UNIX SIG Leader at PACS
http://www.netaxs.com/~cjf         |    (Philadelphia Area Computer Society)
ftp://ftp.netaxs.com/people/cjf    |    Design Science Revolutionary
"Dare to be Naive" -- Bucky Fuller |    Explorer in Universe

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 14:50:15 +0200 (MET DST)

> Move them to project/obsolete or some such.

Better would be to restructure the archive somehow and name things
correctly.  I 'm still think something like this would be better:

stable/       /admin
              /base
              /comm
              ...
stable-extra/ /contrib
              /non-free -> .../non-free
              /obsolete
              /experimental
              /and other names which don't fit in the above

unstable/       /admin
                /base
                /comm
              ...
unstable-extra/ /contrib
                /non-free -> .../non-free
                /obsolete
                /experimental
                /and other names which don't fit in the above
     
This will leave us two main entries for all the packages in a distribution.
The problem with stable and unstable non-free/contrib packages will
disappear (they will be included in the releases approach we are following).
non-free and contrib will get the same status as the other sections like
base, admin and comm &c.  This will make the structure far more consistent.
        
Erick