<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font face="FreeSerif">On 03/10/2016
02:58 AM, Matěj Cepl wrote:<br>
</font></div>
<blockquote cite="mid:slrnne2a9h.qlg.mcepl@mitmanek.ceplovi.cz"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""><font face="FreeSerif"><big>On 2016-03-10, 04:52 GMT, Peter von Kaehne wrote:
</big></font></pre>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #3366FF;">
<pre wrap=""><font face="FreeSerif"><big><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>A module created this way would not be accepted for new import.
</big></font></pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><font face="FreeSerif"><big>Sorry, which way? What’s wrong? Do you mean, because of using
mod2imp? I will gladly use any better sources I will be pointed
to, or contact the module maintainer, but I am afraid there is
none and nobody.</big></font></pre>
</blockquote>
<font face="FreeSerif">It is absurdity of the first order that two
facts are combined, first, that there isn't locally-maintained
access to a module source, and second, that the loss of the remote
source means that the module can never be repaired or updated.
Essentially, "you don't have it now, and you can't have it again.
Ever."<br>
<br>
Matěj, if you wish, and can make your fix by whatever means, let
me get a copy and it will go into Xiphos repo within a day.<br>
<br>
This kind of situation is exactly why I started my own repo in
2007 (now known as the Xiphos repo)... because there are far too
many situations where forward progress becomes impossible, from
simple catatonia of module management lasting literally years, to
policy catch-22, to desire not to be hamstrung by procedure.</font><br>
</body>
</html>