[aur-general] AUR Cleanup Day organization

[Eric Belanger]

On Sat, 3 May 2008, Allan McRae wrote:

> Luká Jirkovský wrote:
>> But in other way, packages without arch field are usually very, very old.
>> 
>>
>> 
> Then they probably fall in this category of the suggest removal guidelines
> - outdated and orphaned packages with few or no votes
>
>
> This situation is behind my reasoning to create a list of potential removals 
> first.  I think we need to be careful of removing too many packages, 
> especially in our first cleanup attempt.  Just the really unneeded ones as a 
> first step.  I had even considered that once the list was made, then I would 
> archive all the relevant PKGBUILDs before deleting them. But it would be 
> better to just not delete useful packages in the first place...
>
> Cheers,
> Allan
>

I don't think it's a good idea to remove orphaned packages simply because 
they are out-of-date. Even out-of-date they can still be useful as it's 
better than having no PKGBUILD at all and maybe someone will adopt them 
eventually.  That's the reason why we call it unsupported: the PKGBUILD 
can be out-of-date, unmaintained or not very good quality-wise.  A lot of 
work has been invested in these PKGBUILD.

However, I don't have any problems about removing old SCM/devel packages, 
duplicates of packages in repo (patched or using different configure 
option) or obsoleted packages.

Eric
-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.