[aur-general] Orphan request
cyberdupo56 at gmail.com
Mon Jul 16 16:07:33 EDT 2012
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 11:00:21PM +0300, D. Can Celasun wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Allen Li <cyberdupo56 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > Op zondag 15 juli 2012 21:46:08 schreef D. Can Celasun:
> >> > >> Wow, Déją vu! In the past another TU asked me the exact same question
> >> > >> and it was decided that if the maintainer didn't update any of his
> >> > >> packages for a long time (e.g a year) the wait-2-weeks-for-response
> >> > >> wasn't necessary. That particular discussion is here . So I'd be
> >> > >> glad if you could go ahead and orphan the packages.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Thanks!
> >> > >>
> >> > >> 
> >> > >> http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2011-October/016307.ht
> >> > >> ml
> > Now, I don't know what official rules we have, but I don't think this is right.
> > Sometimes, a package may be stable without being updated upstream for a long
> > time, and suddenly it's updated a year or so later, and the maintainer may be
> > active but unaware of this. A friendly email reminder should be the first
> > step, and only if the maintainer doesn't respond then a TU should orphan. Am I
> > wrong?
> > Allen Li
> Well, in the case of these two packages (and the one mentioned in the
> other thread), there were several considerations to counter your
> points. The packages:
> - Had more recent upstream stable versions for a long time,
> - Have been flagged as out-of-date for a long time,
> - Had several up-to-date PKGBUILDs in the comments without any input
> from the maintainer.
> Furthermore, the maintainer didn't update *any* of his packages in
> more than a year. So in the end, I don't think your reasoning should
> apply to cases like this. Am I wrong?
Yes, I agree that in this situation orphaning is the right choice. I didn't
look at the details, but from the email it appeared to suggest a "No update in
one year = instant orphan" precedent, which I'm sure you agree is a bad idea.
Sorry for any misunderstandings.
More information about the aur-general