Hi On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Lukas Jirkovsky <[email protected]> wrote: > On 19 July 2013 15:39, Anatol Pomozov <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi >> >> In this case the maintainer should unmark the package and clearly >> explain in comments why the package cannot be upgraded to the new >> version. Ideally maintainer should also work with upstream on >> resolving the issues. But silently leave the package in "out-of-date" >> state forever is not the best solution neither. > > The problem is that the users don't read. It's happening all the time. > I had a package once or twice that couldn't be updated but even though > I stated it in the comments people were still marking it out of date. > BTW, leaving the package as out of date is a good reminder that the > maintainer should check if the problem was fixed every now and then. > > > On 19 July 2013 15:45, Doug Newgard <[email protected]> wrote: >> ---------------------------------------- >> >> Do you consider clicking a link twice (once to unflag, again to reflag) >> every 6 months or so overly burdensome? > > It's simple to forget about that
And that is what email notifications for. > and it's nonsense to do it just to > keep your package. I don't think it's any better than the current > approach with emailing the maintainer first. > > As I mentioned earlier, I don't have anything against mass orphaning > if the maintainer is clearly inactive I don't think that *manual* mass orphaning is a good idea. There should be an automatic way to do this. But if you think that "package was not fixed for 6 months" is a bad indicator of user inactivity what would be a good indicator then? > and his package has problems, > but this automatic approach doesn't take that into account.
