Am Wed, 22 Sep 2010 13:26:07 +0200 schrieb Jakob Gruber <jakob.gruber@gmail.com>:
I'd suggest waiting a week or 2 to give people a chance to look over these lists and raise objections. Afterwards we could either orphan these packages in the DB itself (if our admins agree) or start going through these packages manually.
Any ideas? Objections?
ttf-alee http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=6264 ttf-baekmuk http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=6266 ttf-castlequeen http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=18556 ttf-computer-modern-fonts http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=2100 ttf-ffftusj http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=18567 ttf-garagesh http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=8097 ttf-gill-sans http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=18570 ttf-halftone http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=17721 These fonts are all up-to-date and downloadable. So they should be kept in AUR. ttf-okolaks http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=22494 ttf-aefonts http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=13692 These fonts are not available anymore. So they can be removed. dd_rescue http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=447 ttf-essays http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=11115 These packages are just out-of-date in AUR. Upstream is still active. So these packages should be kept in AUR and orphaned if the usual requirements are fulfilled. Heiko