[arch-general] definition of "orphan"

[mike lojkovic]

This is really only an issue for non-fluent English speakers. We have to
cater towards one language or terms get confusing and on the other end
overly verbose. Both usages of orphan (aur, and packages) match conceptual
categories for the term, meaning abandoned. They're each just abandoned in
different senses. For simplicity sake I would not suggest going into the
nuances of different words meaning different types of abandonment. You'll
just end up splitting hairs and progress towards complicating the
terminology for rather simple package maintenance, while adding no new
package management features.

On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 2:19 AM Óscar García Amor via arch-general <
arch-general at lists.archlinux.org> wrote:

> 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
>