[arch-general] definition of "orphan"

[Óscar García Amor]

El jue, 11 mar 2021 a las 17:40, Elvis Stansvik via arch-general
(<arch-general at lists.archlinux.org>) escribió:

> > 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.

Agree. Is better definition, "abandoned" can create confusion and you
can think that is "abandoned" by upstream, but "unmaintained" takes
the point.

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

Or "unnecessary".

Greetings.

-- 
Óscar García Amor | ogarcia at moire.org | http://ogarcia.me