On 19 July 2013 15:39, Anatol Pomozov <anatol.pomozov@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi
In this case the maintainer should unmark the package and clearly explain in comments why the package cannot be upgraded to the new version. Ideally maintainer should also work with upstream on resolving the issues. But silently leave the package in "out-of-date" state forever is not the best solution neither.
The problem is that the users don't read. It's happening all the time. I had a package once or twice that couldn't be updated but even though I stated it in the comments people were still marking it out of date. BTW, leaving the package as out of date is a good reminder that the maintainer should check if the problem was fixed every now and then. On 19 July 2013 15:45, Doug Newgard <scimmia22@outlook.com> wrote:
----------------------------------------
Do you consider clicking a link twice (once to unflag, again to reflag) every 6 months or so overly burdensome?
It's simple to forget about that and it's nonsense to do it just to keep your package. I don't think it's any better than the current approach with emailing the maintainer first. As I mentioned earlier, I don't have anything against mass orphaning if the maintainer is clearly inactive and his package has problems, but this automatic approach doesn't take that into account. Lukas