On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Peter Lewis <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sunday 03 October 2010 at 20:18 Ray Rashif wrote: >> Anyway, we cannot mass-orphan them without checking. It is simply not >> right, no matter the statistics. For example, cutegod [1] is owned by >> Dragonlord, a TU. He might have his reasons. Like him, many others who >> are not TUs might have their reasons. > > I'm erring this way too, but haven't voted yet. > > Actually, after this list of packages was first posted, I emailed a few of the > maintainers to see if they were still interested in maintaining the packages, > and if so could they update them or else let us know that they can be > orphaned. > > In at least one case [1] the maintainer had simply forgotten that the packakge > had been flagged out of date and promptly updated it. I imagine that there are > a few like this who would appreciate some prompting. In another case, the > maintainer told me that the packgage was a duplicate of another and could be > deleted. > > I wonder if a better approach might be to have the ability for TUs (or > others?) to trigger a "we don't think you're maintaining this any more, it > will be orphaned soon if you don't do anything" notification. If the > maintainer doesn't unflag it, update it, whatever within a period of time, the > package is automatically orphaned. > > I'm hesitant about going ahead and bulk orphaning things, if only because with > the small amount of effort I put in I found a maintainer who was still willing > and just forgot. > > Pete. > > > [1] kdestyle-polyester http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=19745 >
I would be all for orphaning the outdated packages. The only condition is that there should be a public "one week notice" on the main site so that it will give people a chance to unflag it or fix it. My two cents.
