On 02/15/2014 11:11 PM, Michele Calgaro wrote: >> mlt/mtt++ do have dependency value (I forget which package, but I chased >> that dependency down 2 or 3 years ago and it was still worth keeping even >> being i686 only). If I recall correctly knetworkmanager8 AND kpowersave ARE >> required for QT3 3.5.13 builds. Let make sure our decisions are technically >> correct and not simply based on whether anyone chooses to build them >> anymore. > > IMO, I would prefer a GIT repo which is relevant to the current development > trunk (less code to maintain, less code to look through in case of bug > searching, less code to build, less building time, less of all :) ) Yes, some > of the mentioned packages may be required for building older TDE versions > (such as 3.5.13), but we have tags and as I already said, a simple git > checkout would restore your local repo to the exact point of when a > particular version was tagged and built in a matter of seconds, including > folders no longer present in the current repo. > > Anyhow, just my 2 cents. > > Cheers Michele > > All good 2 cents. I agree if the packages server no purposes for anyone any longer, then let's get rid of them. However, if you still use a package and I delete it from the tree just because I don't use it anymore, I would expect you to be a bit perturbed... and vice versa. So if we are going to start lopping directories off the tree, I would suggest we open a "Directories to be Pruned from Git Tree" bug, list the candidates for removal, allow a reasonable time for comment (say 30 days), then with consensus prune those that are no longer needed. That provides a mechanism for reasoned discussion and should prevent surprises. I know everyone on this list is busy, and for an action like this to be taken based on a couple of e-mails and replies in a 24 hour period does not seem right. There is no rush. I have opened the bug: http://bugs.pearsoncomputing.net/show_bug.cgi?id=1937 Add candidates for removal there. -- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.