removal suggestion: port rpm

[Clemens Lang]

On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 10:31:20AM +1000, Joshua Root wrote:
> 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.

What would be appropriate documentation for that? Isn't that what we
have mailinglist archives for? What are the chances that we will need
rpm/srpm and dpkg output ever again? Wouldn't is be just as easy to
re-create them from scratch (we're only talking about 750 LOC here) if
we really needed them and nobody remembered we used to have that?

We could of course switch back to CVS, so we could get an Attic
directory. That would solve all our code removal problems.

> (And that of course applies to code previously removed too.)

So you're proposing I should document the mports:// source now that I
have removed it, even though there have been no repositories providing
the format required by mports:// in at least 5 years?

I wonder why when it comes to removing code that hasn't been used by
anybody in _years_, suddenly lots of people see value in keeping it in a
potential broken state rather than throwing it out to make MacPorts base
a little cleaner.

Let me make this clear to you: macports1.0 (and especially
macports1.0/macports.tcl) is a complete mess. If you don't want me to
clean it up, I'll be happy to leave it alone and spend my time on
something else.

-- 
Clemens Lang