On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 8:57 PM, Xyne <xyne@archlinux.ca> wrote:
On 2013-06-18 13:48 +0200 Karol Blazewicz wrote:
What's the policy wrt to packages that have been submitted years ago and are neither developed upstream nor maintained in the AUR since then? Just let them be or get rid of them as they're of no use? If there're old unmaintained packages foo and foo-git, is it OK to request removing at least one of them? Which one?
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/a4/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/a4-bzr/
The PKGBUILD need updating but it still builds and runs so I can pick it up, update and orphan it. I don't know which filetypes does it open (.odp is not recognized) and the editor doesn't work, so you can't create a new presentation from scratch. It's man page is of no help.
Packages should only be removed if they conflict with policy (copies of official repo packages, malware, illegal packages) or if upstream is dead. Even if the PKGBUILD is an ancient relic from the age of Judd in need of a complete rewrite, we tend to leave them as placeholders.
AUR lacks 'mark package as broken' feature, I guess I can leave a comment that says it's broken + post compile errors etc. Maybe somebody will post a fix ... With regard to dead upstream, do I have to Google around to see if they moved it somewhere or is it OK to lazily submit for deletion? I'm talking about orphaned packages w/o an updated PKGBUILD in the comments or at least a comment that says upstream moved to a different place.
.odp is a Libre-/OpenOffice file extension btw.
I know, I didn't expect it tow work, but I have no idea what kind of presentations are they talking about.
Regards, Xyne