On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 14:54:56 -0300 Giancarlo Razzolini <grazzolini@gmail.com> wrote:
We already have a mechanism for disowning a package and allowing others to maintain it without deleting it. It's called orphaning.
This is not the mechanism for that, and it is the reason why the co-maintainer functionality was created. Using disown for this is wrong.
On the contrary, this is exactly the mechanism for that. You disown a package so that someone else can adopt it. Why else would you disown a package?
Perhaps if TUs are able to view the last updated time from a search fable, they could see an orphaned package with no updates for X months. But as has been said before, orphaned does not mean useless or broken.
Oprhan packages can't be updated, right?
Sure they can, why wouldn't they be? Doug