[arch-general] definition of "orphan"

[Elvis Stansvik]

Den tors 11 mars 2021 16:46Lars Gustäbel via arch-general <
arch-general at lists.archlinux.org> skrev:

> On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 04:24:49PM +0100, Matthias Bodenbinder wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag, dem 11.03.2021 um 16:15 +0100 schrieb Lars Gustäbel:
> > > I really don't know what you're trying to prove here. I would be
> > > interested in
> > > which words you would propose to distinguish between the two
> > > contexts.
> >
> > The pacman defintion is a local definition which only applies to an
> > individual PC. If I have an orphan package on my PC, it is not
> > neccessarily an orphan on your PC.
> >
> > The AUR definition of orphan is a global definition. Meaning, an orphan
> > AUR package is orphan for everybody. I would distinguish this use case
> > by calling it "abandoned" instead or oprhan.
>
> Yes, "abandoned" is good indeed. Although, I would prefer to have orphan
> packages on my system be called "unneeded" packages. It is much more
> precise in
> my opinion.
>

I also think, completely irregardless of the double usage question and how
you can either think of it as problematic or not depending on how narrow
contexts you consider, that the term in AUR should be changed. I suggest
"unmaintained" though.

I think "unneeded" instead of "orphan" for the pacman context sounds good
too, but have no strong opinion.

Elvis


> --
> Lars Gustäbel
> lars at gustaebel.de
>