Am Fri, 1 Jun 2012 20:42:47 +0000 schrieb Xyne <[email protected]>: > Um, I don't think you understood his idea,
I think I did understand his idea. > but at least it didn't > stop you from replying with your usual abrasive tone. Am I not allowed to answer, particularly if I think the idea is pointless? And, no, it is not an abrasive tone. Those are just facts. And I had the impression that Marcin didn't think about the reasons why a package is usually (in most cases) orphaned. It's peculiar that people get personally if they don't share an opinion. > Simplified version: > User Foo maintains x packages in AUR > Foo decides to leave Arch for another distro > Foo orphans his packages because he does not expect to be able to > maintain them Foo later realizes how much better Arch is and returns > to Arch as a prodigal son Foo is now ready to resume maintenance of > his old packages *if necessary* Foo sees that y packages have been > adopted and Foo is happy Foo would like to easily re-adopt the (x-y) > packages that are still orphans I already understood this. This doesn't change anything. Still no reason for an automation. In those very rare cases I guess the previous maintainer still knows which packages he had maintained, and wants to continue maintaining. So he already can easily search for and adopt those packages. Btw., I read at least one comment in the AUR in which the old maintainer asked to be removed from the #Contributor flag in the PKGBUILD. So I think that not everybody would be happy with such a previous maintainer field in the AUR. Heiko
