I feel those created by FredBezies and foutrelis are legit. There is no reason for keeping packages for dead projects, and if upstream does not create commit for more than n years the project is likely to be dead. However what n should be is debatable.
I totally agree with the idea of having "package state": active or inactive. I also think that we should have automated rules for aur that help to remove bogus/dead-upstream/copyright-violating packages. This is because everyone can upload package to aur, and only a few can review them. We can hopefully discuss what rules to be implemented in aur. On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 1:30 AM, Brian F. G. Bidulock <[email protected]> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > carstene1ns, > > On Sun, 17 Aug 2014, carstene1ns wrote: > >> While the new AUR request functionality is a good thing and widely >> accepted (over 500 requests yet), it also brings us some problems: >> >> (1)inhibition threshold - It is much easier to remove a package now. >> (2)response time - Requests get accepted before the package maintainer >> or others have time to explain or react. >> >> There may be other problems, but these two bugged me since it was >> implemented. > > I agree with most of your points; but lets not blame users, TUs or > otherwise. I think we all have an interest in making Arch better. > > I think that the orphan requests are being handled very much as > before, although perhaps will a litte less feedback to the requestor. > I still get some approved and some declined, both usually with > good reason. > > Deletions, on the other hand, appear to be accepted more than before. > Quite often I would see a TU decline a deletion request if the > PKGBUILD could ever be useful later and I think that was a good > approach. A dead former upstream is usually not enough, all dockapps > from dockapps.windowmaker.org would be gone now if that was the > case, not to mention many projects that were formerly hosted on > berlios.de. Having the former PKGBUILD on the AUR is a benefit > for trying to resurrect a source of the upstream package. > > Request #511 (catwm-git) is a good example. The PKGBUILD would have > been helpful as there is a fork on github that was updated 7 days > ago and the old PKGBUILD would have helped by merely shifting the > git source to the fork from the missing repository that it was > based upon. > > Perhaps we could have a state of an AUR package that marks it > as a candidate for deletion, but does not finally delete its > PKGBUILD files until it is obvious that nobody is going to rescue > it. Let's see, more than an orphan, how about a zombie? > > - --brian > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) > > iEYEARECAAYFAlPwaD0ACgkQMYOP2up1d2V0lwCfcGKykMXMayxSZpc4oiIUy9GH > ttMAoNM9QqPGXhe+JUYj5GS+Fp/Hvg+I > =7yo3 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
