[aur-general] About orphaning all packages of inactive users

Lukas Jirkovsky l.jirkovsky at gmail.com
Fri Jul 19 02:40:17 EDT 2013

On 18 July 2013 23:24, Alexander Rødseth <rodseth at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> The two packages that are out of date has not been updated for three years.
> My plan is to orphan all his packages if nobody thinks that's a
> horribly bad idea.
> I'm also interested in comments about what should be done for similar
> situations in the future. I assume most users would be happy just to
> see the pacakges being updated instead of hoarded and would think it
> was fine if TUs just orphan them after a similar investigation of the
> situation.

+1 from me. If the user is inactive for long time and the packages
apparently needs care (this is actually quite important, because you
can have VCS packages not updated for a long time and they will still
work), they should be orhpaned.

On 18 July 2013 23:56, Anatol Pomozov <anatol.pomozov at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi
> IMHO Arch developers should be more proactive in disowning de-facto
> orphaned packages. Something like "if a package is marked out-of-date
> for more than 3 months then it disowns automatically". Similar rule
> can be applied to all packages of inactive users.

I'm strongly against the idea of automatic orphaning. Sometimes the
package may be outdated simply because the new version doesn't work or
has some serious issues.


More information about the aur-general mailing list