Bug #3262
[california] Deprecated package
0%
Description
Removing this package would free up time for the Parabola hackers to work on other things instead of maintaining a rotting old package.
From https://wiki.gnome.org/Apps/California:
It is no longer under development.
The last commit was ~3 years ago: https://gitlab.gnome.org/Archive/california/-/commits/master
It also appears this package was parotucalr troublesome as it required constant rebuilding (#697, #754, #809, #829, #856, #914, #917, #1443, #1538, #1579, #1580, #1693, #1954, #2734, #2737, #2748, #2751, #2759, #2762, all of which can be closed if it is removed), and even required a privacy-respecting version in the nonprism repo.
History
Updated by bill-auger almost 2 years ago
- Status changed from unconfirmed to not-a-bug
most packages need rebuilding often - a large number of bug reports, simply asking to be rebuilt, does not suggest that the package is troublesome - it suggests that the package is popular - if it is no longer being actively developed, it will need rebuilding less often, which is a plus not a minus
in fact, it is ideal - generally, it means that the software has no bugs and none will ever be added - software like that is no burden - it is the best kind of software that everyone should want - if well-written, it will continue to be useful for years to come - we should hope that all software eventually reaches that stage of "completion"
that situation is not the same as "deprecated" or "obsolete"; and those are not the same either - "deprecated" is when the maintainers do not want to maintain it; because they are maintaining a replacement for it - "obsolete" is when it does not work anymore, or serves no valuable purpose
the point is that there is a difference between "developed", "maintained", "deprecated", and "obsolete" - only obsolete packages need to be removed, without doubt - software can be very well-maintained and useful, without being actively developed - the opposite is also true; but that would be very poor-quality software - "maintained" is the important factor - the highest-quality software is maintained, and not actively developed - an LTS distro is an example, as is the core of GNU
most GNU tools (an essential part of nearly every distro) have not been actively developed for 30 years - why? because they are feature-complete, and bug-free, and require nothing new to be added or changed - so, should we delete all those "rotten" GNU tools? - we could not switch to BSD; because its core is almost as old - i guess we would all need to create a new OS from scratch, so that it would be "actively developed" (aka: "not finished yet")
unless the software is broken, there is no reason to remove it - when software "rots", it is obvious ; because it would not build or run properly anymore