[aur-general] AUR Cleanup Day organization
belanger at ASTRO.UMontreal.CA
Fri May 2 12:08:18 EDT 2008
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 - outdated and orphaned packages with few or no votes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...
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they are out-of-date. Even out-of-date they can still be useful as it's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can be out-of-date, unmaintained or not very good quality-wise.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.
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
More information about the aur-general