I wrote Eli directly thanking him for the information as I had the mailing list digest enabled earlier and so didn't have the thread to respond to. I admit I was a little taken aback by the tone of Eli's response at first but I hear and understand the message and I appreciate the explanation of the rationale. I see that once a package is in the official report, removing it is not a trivial matter and very rarely would be the right course of action. Also I get that adding a package requires a TU to adopt and maintain it. I've been a daily arch user for over a year and I'm just starting to become active in the community. Thanks for everyone's patience as I get up to speed on the proper communication channels and policies. On Sun, Feb 25, 2018, 3:23 AM Bartłomiej Piotrowski via arch-general < arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
I guess Adam request should be sent to package mantainer instead of
On 2018-02-25 12:41, Jordan Glover via arch-general wrote: public
list but other than that it's legit and I don't see the point of public rant about it. It doesn't help anyone.
I agree it was unnecessary. The bottom line, however, remains the same: as long as it's required by other packages, it stays in the official repositories. Even when it becomes a leaf package, it's up to the maintainer to drop it.
Bartłomiej