On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 2:03 PM, Doug Newgard <scimmia@archlinux.info> wrote:
> >
> > As far as I can tell, you've been maintaining nothing. You put things up on
> > github then tell people to submit pull requests if they want even an
> > update.
> > That's not maintaining a package, that's you simply wanting control.
> >
>
> I wish you wouldn't resort to responding ad hominem, especially when you're
> in the wrong.  This month so far I've updated openonload and a couple of
> other packages, created the airflow and airflow-git packages, etc. and I've
> been responsive to email (clearly since I am responding to events same-day
> on a Sunday afternoon), please get your facts straight. ;-)

The fact that you've updated a package does not negate the point here. If you
don't have time to update other packages and require someone else to do the
work, disown the package.

It does negate your accusation that I'm maintaining nothing, which is what I was responding to.  FYI, looking at the git logs of my local git repo and the AUR4 git repo, it looks like I had committed 1.17.27 locally but not pushed it to AUR.  (AUR had 1.17.25.) 

Since AUR4 introduced comaintainers, I've switched to making people co-maintainers instead of outright disowning.  That makes the transition smoother - if I disown the package, the comaintainer becomes the maintainer, and there is a transition period to make sure the new maintainer remains active.  Maybe I shouldn't bother though, it seems co-maintainership is buggy in some edge cases (https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/50079).
 
 
Sounds more like there should be a dpkg-old. Arch standards are pretty simple,
the "dpkg" package should be the latest upstream stable release.

Agreed.  Maybe a name with less negative connotation, like "dpkg-jessie".  Done.