gnu-linux-libre
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [gnu.org #1262331] (inactive Linux distributions)


From: Luke Shumaker
Subject: Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [gnu.org #1262331] (inactive Linux distributions)
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2018 14:10:12 -0500
User-agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) SEMI-EPG/1.14.7 (Harue) FLIM/1.14.9 (Goj┼Ź) APEL/10.8 EasyPG/1.0.0 Emacs/25.3 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)

On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 21:28:47 -0500,
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jan 19, 2018, Caleb Herbert <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> > wouldn't dropping them from the list act as a wake-up call
> > to hurry up?
> 
> Maybe that would be too drastic.  After all, even if old and
> unmaintained, it's still Free Software.  Perhaps we'd be better off
> breaking up the section of self-hosted distros into multiple sections,
> so that there could be one section for Live distros that are supposed to
> be used in read-only media and don't get updates, like dyne:bolic and
> Musix, and one for distros that are in need of contributors to issue
> newer releases and even updates like BLAG.  The latter section would be
> the wake-up call, and if a distro remained too long in there, then it
> gets removed.  It would also get users better information, and avoid
> giving users the idea that distros in the list are outdated just because
> they hit the one or two that really are.

That sounds like a lot of decisions and judgement calls.  What about
just having automatically-updated "last install-media" and "last
update" dates?  Let users decide what they think qualifies as
unmaintained, and in need of contributors.

I do agree that it would be good for distros intended for read-only
media to have that indicated on the page, but that could just be in
the distro description, I don't think they need to be moved to a
separate section.

-- 
Happy hacking,
~ Luke Shumaker
  Parabola



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]