On Sat, 3 May 2008, Allan McRae wrote:
Luká Jirkovský wrote:
But in other way, packages without arch field are usually very, very old.
Then they probably fall in this category of the suggest removal guidelines
- outdated and orphaned packages with few or no votes
This situation is behind my reasoning to create a list of potential removals
first. I think we need to be careful of removing too many packages,
especially in our first cleanup attempt. Just the really unneeded ones as a
first step. I had even considered that once the list was made, then I would
archive all the relevant PKGBUILDs before deleting them. But it would be
better to just not delete useful packages in the first place...
Cheers,
Allan
I don't think it's a good idea to remove orphaned packages simply because
they are out-of-date. Even out-of-date they can still be useful as it's
better than having no PKGBUILD at all and maybe someone will adopt them
eventually. That's the reason why we call it unsupported: the PKGBUILD
can be out-of-date, unmaintained or not very good quality-wise. A lot of
work has been invested in these PKGBUILD.
However, I don't have any problems about removing old SCM/devel packages,
duplicates of packages in repo (patched or using different configure
option) or obsoleted packages.
Eric
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
