[aur-general] About orphaning all packages of inactive users
l.jirkovsky at gmail.com
Mon Jul 22 05:07:51 EDT 2013
On 19 July 2013 20:40, Anatol Pomozov <anatol.pomozov at gmail.com> wrote:
> And that is what email notifications for.
They are good when someone flags our package out of date. But after
that it is easy to forget about it.
> I don't think that *manual* mass orphaning is a good idea. There
> should be an automatic way to do this.
It doesn't happen that often. A viable solution for me would be
sending an automated email to trusted users about possibly inactive
accounts and it would be up to TUs to decide whether the packages
should be orphaned (or even deleted).
> But if you think that "package was not fixed for 6 months" is a bad
> indicator of user inactivity what would be a good indicator then?
The problem is that out of date doesn't mean broken.
On 19 July 2013 20:54, cyberdupo56 <cyberdupo56 at gmail.com> wrote:
> It sounds like there are two separate problems here. We need to
> clarify what the out-of-date marker on the AUR means. Does it mean it
> is out of date with upstream, or out of date with the newest
> viable/working version? Perhaps there should be another field added,
> so we can mark packages as
> out-of-date-but-cannot-be-upgraded-at-this-time. That way, if a
> package is marked out-of-date but not cannot-be-upgraded with no
> activity for a period of time, it should be safe to orphan after
> sending a warning email.
I think a flag "broken" would be more appropriate. I guess it would be
better than reporting problems in comments as it's done now, because
everyone would immediately know if there's some problem with a package
without having to read the comments and the PKGBUILD (which everyone
should do anyway).
More information about the aur-general