On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Peter Lewis <pete@muddygoat.org> wrote:
On Sunday 03 October 2010 at 20:18 Ray Rashif wrote:
Anyway, we cannot mass-orphan them without checking. It is simply not right, no matter the statistics. For example, cutegod [1] is owned by Dragonlord, a TU. He might have his reasons. Like him, many others who are not TUs might have their reasons.
I'm erring this way too, but haven't voted yet.
Actually, after this list of packages was first posted, I emailed a few of the maintainers to see if they were still interested in maintaining the packages, and if so could they update them or else let us know that they can be orphaned.
In at least one case [1] the maintainer had simply forgotten that the packakge had been flagged out of date and promptly updated it. I imagine that there are a few like this who would appreciate some prompting. In another case, the maintainer told me that the packgage was a duplicate of another and could be deleted.
I wonder if a better approach might be to have the ability for TUs (or others?) to trigger a "we don't think you're maintaining this any more, it will be orphaned soon if you don't do anything" notification. If the maintainer doesn't unflag it, update it, whatever within a period of time, the package is automatically orphaned.
I'm hesitant about going ahead and bulk orphaning things, if only because with the small amount of effort I put in I found a maintainer who was still willing and just forgot.
Pete.
[1] kdestyle-polyester http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=19745
I would be all for orphaning the outdated packages. The only condition is that there should be a public "one week notice" on the main site so that it will give people a chance to unflag it or fix it. My two cents.