Am Wed, 22 Sep 2010 13:26:07 +0200 schrieb Jakob Gruber <[email protected]>:
> I'd suggest waiting a week or 2 to give people a chance to look over > these lists and raise objections. Afterwards we could either orphan > these packages in the DB itself (if our admins agree) or start going > through these packages manually. > > Any ideas? Objections? ttf-alee http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=6264 ttf-baekmuk http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=6266 ttf-castlequeen http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=18556 ttf-computer-modern-fonts http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=2100 ttf-ffftusj http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=18567 ttf-garagesh http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=8097 ttf-gill-sans http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=18570 ttf-halftone http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=17721 These fonts are all up-to-date and downloadable. So they should be kept in AUR. ttf-okolaks http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=22494 ttf-aefonts http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=13692 These fonts are not available anymore. So they can be removed. dd_rescue http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=447 ttf-essays http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=11115 These packages are just out-of-date in AUR. Upstream is still active. So these packages should be kept in AUR and orphaned if the usual requirements are fulfilled. Heiko
