On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 11:00:21PM +0300, D. Can Celasun wrote: > On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Allen Li <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > Op zondag 15 juli 2012 21:46:08 schreef D. Can Celasun: > >> > >> Wow, Déją vu! In the past another TU asked me the exact same question > >> > >> and it was decided that if the maintainer didn't update any of his > >> > >> packages for a long time (e.g a year) the wait-2-weeks-for-response > >> > >> wasn't necessary. That particular discussion is here [1]. So I'd be > >> > >> glad if you could go ahead and orphan the packages. > >> > >> > >> > >> Thanks! > >> > >> > >> > >> [1] > >> > >> http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2011-October/016307.ht > >> > >> ml > > > > Now, I don't know what official rules we have, but I don't think this is > > right. > > Sometimes, a package may be stable without being updated upstream for a long > > time, and suddenly it's updated a year or so later, and the maintainer may > > be > > active but unaware of this. A friendly email reminder should be the first > > step, and only if the maintainer doesn't respond then a TU should orphan. > > Am I > > wrong? > > > > Allen Li > > > Well, in the case of these two packages (and the one mentioned in the > other thread), there were several considerations to counter your > points. The packages: > > - Had more recent upstream stable versions for a long time, > - Have been flagged as out-of-date for a long time, > - Had several up-to-date PKGBUILDs in the comments without any input > from the maintainer. > > Furthermore, the maintainer didn't update *any* of his packages in > more than a year. So in the end, I don't think your reasoning should > apply to cases like this. Am I wrong? > > Can
Yes, I agree that in this situation orphaning is the right choice. I didn't look at the details, but from the email it appeared to suggest a "No update in one year = instant orphan" precedent, which I'm sure you agree is a bad idea. Sorry for any misunderstandings. Allen
