Em 12-08-2015 14:42, Justin Dray escreveu:
Perhaps seeing active comments or that the packages had to have been updated within month since everything was cleared for AUR4?
Comments aren't the best way. A package can work so well as to not have any comments for a long time. Or is simple enough that won't need comments. Or has a nice wiki page. The best way is, if a package is orphaned for some time, doesn't have actual PKGBUILD downloads for some time, it is a perfect candidate for deletion.
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.
The problem here is that how they are treated has apparently changed with no community involvement or even a warning that orphan packages will be deleted at random.
I don't think it was a policy change nor anything.
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? And, even if it wasn't update for years before it was disowned, doesn't meant it was not useful anymore. The metric here should be based on relevance (actual PKGBUILD downloads) and time since it become orphan. Cheers, Giancarlo Razzolini