On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 11:00:21PM +0300, D. Can Celasun wrote:
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Allen Li <cyberdupo56@gmail.com> wrote:
Op zondag 15 juli 2012 21:46:08 schreef D. Can Celasun:
Wow, Déją vu! In the past another TU asked me the exact same question and it was decided that if the maintainer didn't update any of his packages for a long time (e.g a year) the wait-2-weeks-for-response wasn't necessary. That particular discussion is here [1]. So I'd be glad if you could go ahead and orphan the packages.
Thanks!
[1] http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2011-October/016307.ht ml
Now, I don't know what official rules we have, but I don't think this is right. Sometimes, a package may be stable without being updated upstream for a long time, and suddenly it's updated a year or so later, and the maintainer may be active but unaware of this. A friendly email reminder should be the first step, and only if the maintainer doesn't respond then a TU should orphan. Am I wrong?
Allen Li
Well, in the case of these two packages (and the one mentioned in the other thread), there were several considerations to counter your points. The packages:
- Had more recent upstream stable versions for a long time, - Have been flagged as out-of-date for a long time, - Had several up-to-date PKGBUILDs in the comments without any input from the maintainer.
Furthermore, the maintainer didn't update *any* of his packages in more than a year. So in the end, I don't think your reasoning should apply to cases like this. Am I wrong?
Can
Yes, I agree that in this situation orphaning is the right choice. I didn't look at the details, but from the email it appeared to suggest a "No update in one year = instant orphan" precedent, which I'm sure you agree is a bad idea. Sorry for any misunderstandings. Allen