The search returns a dozen unmaintained packages and you have to look
through them [...] I prefer to have a reasonable signal-to-noise ratio.
This could be solved by having search results list stale packages
last (and/or greyed-out or something).
stale could be defined as is unmaintained and
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
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 8:57 PM, Xyne x...@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
On 19/06/13 12:53 PM, Karol Blazewicz wrote:
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 8:57 PM, Xyne x...@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
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.
On 19 June 2013
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 11:44 PM, Karol Woźniak wozni...@gmail.com wrote:
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
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 23:44:44 +0200
From: wozni...@gmail.com
To: aur-general@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
On 19 June 2013 23:48, Karol Blazewicz karol.blazew...@gmail.com wrote:
How can I get the sources? If you provide a mirror, I think it's OK.
When talking about ded upstream, I'm not talking about upstream
website being 404, I'm talking about the sources for the package being
gone.
We have a
On 19 June 2013 23:49, Doug Newgard scimmi...@outlook.com wrote:
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
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 1:27 AM, Karol Woźniak wozni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 June 2013 23:49, Doug Newgard scimmi...@outlook.com wrote:
I don't think anyone's suggesting just removing them en mass, but removing
them if upstream is gone, they don't
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
11 matches
Mail list logo
