On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 06:44:51 +0800 Ng Oon-Ee <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 16:04 +0200, Peter Simons wrote: > > Well, when a Haskell package is obviously out-of-date on AUR and > > someone offers to take over maintenance, then disown it and let > > that person handle the package. That's the way it's done for > > everything else, and the procedure seems to work fine. It's a > > mystery to me why the ArchLinux team deviated from that procedure > > for Haskell packages in the first place. > > > > Take care, > > Peter > > Wasn't there a Haskell update script that automatically did the > updating? >
Even if that's the case, it obviously did not work so I'd say we follow the same procedure if this situation repeats with other packages. If there was no proper update after a hint at their ML, we follow the request from user side as no one can blame us for that. If the people behind the account maintaining the packages don't update the packages after a hint and a proper timeframe, it is just like with any normal user that we have to follow the request. I don't want to offend anyone, but I guess a userbase is generally more than the people maintaining a package, so more people are happy with an up to date package - which in the case of the haskell packages is also part of something larger - than with an older package maintained by a group which was notified and had the time for an update. -- Jabber: [email protected] Blog: http://atsutane.freethoughts.de/ Key: 295AFBF4 FP: 39F8 80E5 0E49 A4D1 1341 E8F9 39E4 F17F 295A FBF4
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
