---------------------------------------- > Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 23:44:44 +0200 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [aur-general] AUR cleanup policy > > I am against removing "dead upstream" packages, unless upstream is > completely gone, i.e. there is no way to obtain necessary files. I am > maintaining at least two packages with upstream long dead, but (after my > patches, of course) they're still working and are used by some people.
I don't think anyone's suggesting just removing them en mass, but removing them if upstream is gone, they don't build, and haven't been updated in a long time. In that situation, what would the reason be to keep them? > > > On 19 June 2013 22:49, Connor Behan <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 19/06/13 12:53 PM, Karol Blazewicz wrote: >>> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 8:57 PM, Xyne <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> On 2013-06-18 13:48 +0200 >>>> Karol Blazewicz wrote: >>>> >>>>> What's the policy wrt to packages that have been submitted years ago >>>>> and are neither developed upstream nor maintained in the AUR since >>>>> then? Just let them be or get rid of them as they're of no use? >>>>> If there're old unmaintained packages foo and foo-git, is it OK to >>>>> request removing at least one of them? Which one? >>>>> >>>>> https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/a4/ >>>>> https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/a4-bzr/ >>>>> >>>>> The PKGBUILD need updating but it still builds and runs so I can pick >>>>> it up, update and orphan it. I don't know which filetypes does it open >>>>> (.odp is not recognized) and the editor doesn't work, so you can't >>>>> create a new presentation from scratch. >>>>> It's man page is of no help. >>>> >>>> Packages should only be removed if they conflict with policy (copies of >>>> official repo packages, malware, illegal packages) or if upstream is >> dead. Even >>>> if the PKGBUILD is an ancient relic from the age of Judd in need of a >> complete >>>> rewrite, we tend to leave them as placeholders. >>> AUR lacks 'mark package as broken' feature, I guess I can leave a >>> comment that says it's broken + post compile errors etc. Maybe >>> somebody will post a fix ... >>> >>> With regard to dead upstream, do I have to Google around to see if >>> they moved it somewhere or is it OK to lazily submit for deletion? I'm >>> talking about orphaned packages w/o an updated PKGBUILD in the >>> comments or at least a comment that says upstream moved to a different >>> place. >>> >> >> I would only submit such packages for deletion if their PKGBUILDs do a >> simple ./configure && make && make install. If there are non-trivial >> patches, even if they are long broken, I would leave it in the AUR. When >> someone comes along and says "I want to make this dead package work >> again" patches that once work can be a useful starting point. >> >> > > > -- > Pozdrawiam, > Karol Woźniak > aka Kenji Takahashi > @ kenji.sx > "Don't shoot the messenger."
