[aur-general] Proposal: Mass AUR Cleanup

[Konstantinos Karantias]

But also, orphaning all the packages that fit into this category is unsure.

Some people may have orphaned the for fun or something. It has happened to
me many times.

On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 9:33 PM, Brad Fanella <bradfanella at archlinux.us>wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 03, 2010 at 10:03:25PM +0300, Konstantinos Karantias wrote:
> > 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
> > it.
> >
> > (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
> > > packages
> > > > > marked 'out of date' which have not been updated (or submitted)
> since
> > > before
> > > > > 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 out-of-date
> > > then
> > > 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 operation might even write a script to flag such packages out-of-date).
> > > Perhaps
> > > 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
> > > last
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Xyne
> > >
>
> Also, I know this was only mentioned on the TU voting page, but there are
> currently 525 packages that are out of date that fit into this category.
>
> Checking/orphaning all of them by hand wouldn't be practical.
>
> -- Brad
>



-- 
Blog: http://www.gtklocker.com/