On 18 August 2016 at 00:28, 7heo <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> As pointed out on IRC, some packages might have to stay unupdated for some> time.>> I'm also afraid that this might put artificial presssure on us, while it's> not strictly needed.>> We acknowledged multiple times the need of QA, and this seems to me to be> a good use case. aarch64 isn't building, and some packages are obviously> abandoned (which is a problem, too), but I would be happier if we would> test everything on the platforms it's supposed to support. And I'm not> talking only about testing if our packages build; but also of the intended> functionality is correctly provided.>> Ofc that won't happen overnight, and moving the broken packages out of the> way might be a good temporary solution. But IMHO we should not decide of we> want a package based on if it builds or not. Wouldn't an unmaintained (and> don't we have one already?) folder work?
Yes, the idea is to move them to unmaintained which technically purges the
packages, sorry for the confusion.