[aur-general] Proposal: Mass AUR Cleanup
kostis at gtklocker.com
Sun Oct 3 15:03:25 EDT 2010
I'm not a TU, but I don't agree. Package sources may not be updated by then,
so the packages doesn't actually need any modifications.
In my opinion, you should examine every package in detail before deleting
(In other words, I agree with Xyne :P)
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 9:57 PM, Xyne <xyne at archlinux.ca> wrote:
> Brad Fanella wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 03, 2010 at 07:54:42PM +0200, Jakob Gruber wrote:
> > > Hi TUs,
> > >
> > > I've just created a new proposal concerning the orphaning of all
> > > marked 'out of date' which have not been updated (or submitted) since
> > > January 1st, 2009. For details, see the actual proposal text.
> > >
> > > The voting period ends on October 10th, please cast your votes!
> > >
> > > schuay
> > Yeah, as long as they haven't been updated for a while (as you said,
> January 1st, 2009), then I'm all for it!
> > Thanks,
> > Brad
> I've cast a "yes" vote. I also move to name this "Operation Oliver Twist"
> and to
> name the orphaning script "twister".
> One problem that might arise though is if a stable package (i.e. one that
> almost never gets updated upstream) has been recently flagged out-of-date
> it might get orphaned (a malicious user who is aware of the impending
> operation might even write a script to flag such packages out-of-date).
> you could cross-reference the last activity of the maintainer when deciding
> whether to delete a package, e.g. last package action <= 2009-01-01 and
> maintainer action <= xxxx-xx-xx.
> That shouldn't add much complexity to the code but it might improve the
> handling of a few fringe cases. I'm really just floating the idea though.
More information about the aur-general