Re: [aur-general] [PRQ#1089] Orphan Request for mingw-w64-readline
To: aur-requests@archlinux.org Subject: [PRQ#1089] Orphan Request for mingw-w64-readline CC: pingplug@foxmail.com; xantares09@hotmail.com From: notify@aur.archlinux.org Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 14:04:53 +0000
pingplug [1] filed a orphan request for mingw-w64-readline [2]:
readline has not been updated for a long time.
[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/pingplug/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/mingw-w64-readline/
@pingplug: you could have dropped me a mail, I tend to answer it @tus, since when "has not been updated for a long time" is a valid reason for orphaning ? ps: I know this one is not up to date, i did not update it because this one is rather sensitive and I prefered to get same version as mingw-readline from fedora.
On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 15:22:20 +0000 xantares 09 <xantares09@hotmail.com> wrote:
To: aur-requests@archlinux.org Subject: [PRQ#1089] Orphan Request for mingw-w64-readline CC: pingplug@foxmail.com; xantares09@hotmail.com From: notify@aur.archlinux.org Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 14:04:53 +0000
pingplug [1] filed a orphan request for mingw-w64-readline [2]:
readline has not been updated for a long time.
[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/pingplug/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/mingw-w64-readline/
@pingplug: you could have dropped me a mail, I tend to answer it
@tus, since when "has not been updated for a long time" is a valid reason for orphaning ?
ps: I know this one is not up to date, i did not update it because this one is rather sensitive and I prefered to get same version as mingw-readline from fedora.
When it's been marked out of date for more than 7 months, what do you expect?
Hi On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 8:22 AM, xantares 09 <xantares09@hotmail.com> wrote:
To: aur-requests@archlinux.org Subject: [PRQ#1089] Orphan Request for mingw-w64-readline CC: pingplug@foxmail.com; xantares09@hotmail.com From: notify@aur.archlinux.org Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 14:04:53 +0000
pingplug [1] filed a orphan request for mingw-w64-readline [2]:
readline has not been updated for a long time.
[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/pingplug/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/mingw-w64-readline/
@pingplug: you could have dropped me a mail, I tend to answer it
@tus, since when "has not been updated for a long time" is a valid reason for orphaning ?
Yes, long out-of-date package is a perfect reason for orphaning. There are of course valid reasons like newer version is completely broken and upstream did not provide fix, but in this case maintainer should tell it on AUR package page. Package maintenance is a responsibility not a privilege. The maintainer suppose to follow Arch packaging best practices. Some of these practices are react on reported issues, keep package file simple and clean, keep it up-to-date. If current maintainer fails to follow these practices then it is ok for others to file an orphan request.
ps: I know this one is not up to date, i did not update it because this one is rather sensitive and I prefered to get same version as mingw-readline from fedora.
Arch is not Fedora. Why would you want to keep there same version?
Arch is not Fedora. Why would you want to keep there same version?
Many of the MinGW-w64 packages are basically a copy of the fedora packages. For instance the Qt packages I maintain are mostly a copy of the fedora packages. I will more times have updated them before fedora has. Once they update I check if any of the changes or patches are useful for Arch too. -ant32
participants (4)
-
Anatol Pomozov
-
Doug Newgard
-
Philip A Reimer
-
xantares 09