[aur-general] AUR cleanup policy

[Karol Blazewicz]

On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 8:57 PM, Xyne <xyne at archlinux.ca> wrote:
> On 2013-06-18 13:48 +0200
> Karol Blazewicz wrote:
>
>>What's the policy wrt to packages that have been submitted years ago
>>and are neither developed upstream nor maintained in the AUR since
>>then? Just let them be or get rid of them as they're of no use?
>>If there're old unmaintained packages foo and foo-git, is it OK to
>>request removing at least one of them? Which one?
>>
>>https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/a4/
>>https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/a4-bzr/
>>
>>The PKGBUILD need updating but it still builds and runs so I can pick
>>it up, update and orphan it. I don't know which filetypes does it open
>>(.odp is not recognized) and the editor doesn't work, so you can't
>>create a new presentation from scratch.
>>It's man page is of no help.
>
>
> Packages should only be removed if they conflict with policy (copies of
> official repo packages, malware, illegal packages) or if upstream is dead. Even
> if the PKGBUILD is an ancient relic from the age of Judd in need of a complete
> rewrite, we tend to leave them as placeholders.

AUR lacks 'mark package as broken' feature, I guess I can leave a
comment that says it's broken + post compile errors etc. Maybe
somebody will post a fix ...

With regard to dead upstream, do I have to Google around to see if
they moved it somewhere or is it OK to lazily submit for deletion? I'm
talking about orphaned packages w/o an updated PKGBUILD in the
comments or at least a comment that says upstream moved to a different
place.


> .odp is a Libre-/OpenOffice file extension btw.

I know, I didn't expect it tow work, but I have no idea what kind of
presentations are they talking about.

> Regards,
> Xyne