El jue, 11 mar 2021 a las 17:40, Elvis Stansvik via arch-general (<arch-general@lists.archlinux.org>) escribió:
Yes, "abandoned" is good indeed. Although, I would prefer to have orphan packages on my system be called "unneeded" packages. It is much more precise in my opinion.
I also think, completely irregardless of the double usage question and how you can either think of it as problematic or not depending on how narrow contexts you consider, that the term in AUR should be changed. I suggest "unmaintained" though.
Agree. Is better definition, "abandoned" can create confusion and you can think that is "abandoned" by upstream, but "unmaintained" takes the point.
I think "unneeded" instead of "orphan" for the pacman context sounds good too, but have no strong opinion.
Or "unnecessary". Greetings. -- Óscar García Amor | ogarcia at moire.org | http://ogarcia.me