On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 12:24 AM, Alexander Rødseth <rodseth@gmail.com>wrote:
Thank you for the comments, appreciate it!
About causing panic when orphaning: the package will continue to be available and work even if it's orphaned, but now there is a chance that someone will pick up the thread where the previous maintainer left of and improve and update the PKGBUILD. If someone panics from this, perhaps it's still a good trade?
The reason I'm asking is because I suspect that I'm more fond of cleaning up old cruft than the average TU/Dev, and I don't wish to orphan or delete packages in a way that is perceived as rash.
In my opinion, being relatively quick to orphan, but hesitant to delete, should result in a better AUR repository for everyone, as long as the criterions for disowning packages is somewhat conservative. I would say a user being inactive for more than a year is quite sufficient.
A comment from another TU or Dev would be especially helpful.
-- Sincerely, Alexander Rødseth xyproto / TU
I support this too. Orphaning is reversible and will most (preferably always :P) of the time lead to an improvement of the PKGBUILD, I see no reason not to do it when the user is clearly inactive. As for deletions, I would also tend to delete old stuff more easily, but I understand and respect the wish to keep placeholders in the AUR. Cheers, -- Maxime