Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> This is breaking support for multiple ports to rewrite some feature for a tiny security benefit. And doing so on an unacceptably short timeline. Introducing breakage like this is unacceptable. I’m Normally I’d agree, but the ports in question are really quite old and obscure. I don’t think anything would have changed with an even longer timeline.

I think the best move would have been to announce deprecation of those ports separately. As it was announced, people who will never be impacted by their deprecation are upset because the deprecation was tied to something else (Rust) that is a hot topic.

If the deprecation of those ports was announced separately I doubt it would have even been news. Instead we’ve got this situation where people are angry that Rust took something away from someone.





Those ports were never official, and so aren't being deprecated. Nothing changes about Debian's support policies with this change.

EDIT: okay so I was slightly too strong: some of them were official as of 2011, but haven't been since then. The main point that this isn't deprecating any supported ports is still accurate.


That’s helpful info, but I don’t think it will change any of the minds that are angry about what they see as Rust taking something away from someone.

It’s the way the two actions were linked that caused the controversy.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: