[aur-general] About orphaning all packages of inactive users
l.jirkovsky at gmail.com
Fri Jul 19 14:16:01 EDT 2013
On 19 July 2013 15:39, Anatol Pomozov <anatol.pomozov at gmail.com> wrote:
> In this case the maintainer should unmark the package and clearly
> explain in comments why the package cannot be upgraded to the new
> version. Ideally maintainer should also work with upstream on
> resolving the issues. But silently leave the package in "out-of-date"
> state forever is not the best solution neither.
The problem is that the users don't read. It's happening all the time.
I had a package once or twice that couldn't be updated but even though
I stated it in the comments people were still marking it out of date.
BTW, leaving the package as out of date is a good reminder that the
maintainer should check if the problem was fixed every now and then.
On 19 July 2013 15:45, Doug Newgard <scimmia22 at outlook.com> wrote:
> Do you consider clicking a link twice (once to unflag, again to reflag) every 6 months or so overly burdensome?
It's simple to forget about that and it's nonsense to do it just to
keep your package. I don't think it's any better than the current
approach with emailing the maintainer first.
As I mentioned earlier, I don't have anything against mass orphaning
if the maintainer is clearly inactive and his package has problems,
but this automatic approach doesn't take that into account.
More information about the aur-general