removal suggestion: port rpm

[Joshua Root]

On 2013-8-20 20:42 , Clemens Lang wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 11:23:51PM +0200, Anders F Björklund wrote:
>> So I can see why you don't want to support RPM, and if you don't then
>> I too think that it could be removed rather than just left to rot
>> away.
> 
> My point is not necessarily that I don't want to support it, but it's
> hard to test and get right (and fix bugs) if there is no use case for
> the results. I'd rather remove it than leave it there in a broken state.
> If we need to take a look at the code later, we can always get it from
> the version history.

It's technically true that deleted code is all there in the history, but
practically speaking nobody is ever going to find it because they'll
have no way of even knowing to look for it. It needs to be documented
somewhere for this to be realistic. (And that of course applies to code
previously removed too.)

>> PS. Can we get rid of the dmg and mdmg as well, while house-cleaning?
>> Those are only needed for the (unsupported) Tiger, without the "flat"
> 
> Are those really unused? I thought some projects are using those to
> build re-distributable packages of software built using MacPorts; should
> we suggest using .pkg instead?

We can't do flat packages on Leopard either. Only being useful on a
couple of old platforms is IMO very different to nobody using it.

But yeah, when available, flat (m)pkgs accomplish the same thing as dmgs.

- Josh