On Sat, 3 May 2008, Allan McRae wrote:
Luká Jirkovský wrote:
But in other way, packages without arch field are usually very, very old.
Then they probably fall in this category of the suggest removal guidelines - outdated and orphaned packages with few or no votes
This situation is behind my reasoning to create a list of potential removals first. I think we need to be careful of removing too many packages, especially in our first cleanup attempt. Just the really unneeded ones as a first step. I had even considered that once the list was made, then I would archive all the relevant PKGBUILDs before deleting them. But it would be better to just not delete useful packages in the first place...
Cheers, Allan
I don't think it's a good idea to remove orphaned packages simply because they are out-of-date. Even out-of-date they can still be useful as it's better than having no PKGBUILD at all and maybe someone will adopt them eventually. That's the reason why we call it unsupported: the PKGBUILD can be out-of-date, unmaintained or not very good quality-wise. A lot of work has been invested in these PKGBUILD. However, I don't have any problems about removing old SCM/devel packages, duplicates of packages in repo (patched or using different configure option) or obsoleted packages. Eric -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.