On 8 October 2010 20:51, Xyne <[email protected]> wrote: > Vinzenz Vietzke wrote: > >> Am 08.10.2010 11:02, schrieb Jakob Gruber: >> > I agree, there should be no exceptions made in the AUR, not for TUs, not >> > for devs, >> > and not for arch-haskell (or anybody else). The same rules should apply >> > to all. >> >> Dito! Perhaps orphaning such packages puts some pressure on their >> maintainers. So there could even be some "educational" side effect... >> >> vinz. > > Actually, Peter's latest angry message seems to have convinced Don to step > down, effectively eliminating the Arch Haskell group unless others step up to > handle it. > > Considering the large number of packages (thousands) that he managed to keep > up > to date with few issues, I personally think this is a considerable loss for > the > community. People take such contributions for granted and instead of > appreciating them they get bitchy when those contributions don't meet all of > their expectations. Being 1.5 weeks behind due to life getting in the way is > completely understandable. > > Plus this entire discussion ignores my original question of whether the > maintainer had been contacted, as per standard procedure when an orphan > request > is posted. Past frustrations do not change that. Personally, I would not be > very inclined to spend even more of my time rushing an update to help someone > who is generally very rude to me, and I doubt that many of you would either. > > The whole situation is unfortunate. >
I might be a bit too harsh in my post, I think Don did an incredible job. However I still think that Haskell packages should not have an exception for orphaning.
