[aur-general] AUR cleanup policy

[Doug Newgard]

----------------------------------------
> Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 23:44:44 +0200
> From: wozniakk at gmail.com
> To: aur-general at archlinux.org
> Subject: Re: [aur-general] AUR cleanup policy
>
> I am against removing "dead upstream" packages, unless upstream is
> completely gone, i.e. there is no way to obtain necessary files. I am
> maintaining at least two packages with upstream long dead, but (after my
> patches, of course) they're still working and are used by some people.

I don't think anyone's suggesting just removing them en mass, but removing them if upstream is gone, they don't build, and haven't been updated in a long time. In that situation, what would the reason be to keep them?

>
>
> On 19 June 2013 22:49, Connor Behan <connor.behan at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 19/06/13 12:53 PM, Karol Blazewicz wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> I would only submit such packages for deletion if their PKGBUILDs do a
>> simple ./configure && make && make install. If there are non-trivial
>> patches, even if they are long broken, I would leave it in the AUR. When
>> someone comes along and says "I want to make this dead package work
>> again" patches that once work can be a useful starting point.
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Pozdrawiam,
> Karol Woźniak
> aka Kenji Takahashi
> @ kenji.sx
> "Don't shoot the messenger."