On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 at 04:20 Doug Newgard <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 15:07:57 -0300 > Giancarlo Razzolini <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Em 12-08-2015 15:01, Doug Newgard escreveu: > > > On the contrary, this is exactly the mechanism for that. You disown a > package > > > so that someone else can adopt it. Why else would you disown a package? > > > > Let me rephrase it. Disowning a package isn't the mechanism for allowing > > others to maintain a package, if you still need/use/care for it. > > Co-maintainer functionality is for that. There were people on the old > > AUR that would disown a package so that someone else could update it, > > and then disown it again, and so on. This should end. > > You aren't getting it. If you don't want to maintain a package and want to > make > it available to others, you disown it. This doesn't mean you want it > deleted, > it simply means you want someone else to maintain it. If someone > approaches you > and want to help, you make them a co-maintainer. Two completely different > things. > > > > > > Sure they can, why wouldn't they be? > > > > If someone adopt it. When they are in orphaned status, they can't. But, > > then again, if someone adopt it, then it wouldn't be deleted, and we > > wouldn't be having this discussion. > > Anyone can push to the repo of an orphaned package. That person then > automatically becomes the maintainer, but will often simply disown it > again. > > Doug > There's definitely some discrepancies in how we're all thinking about how it should work (for the record I'm totally aligned with Doug in this regard), but I have to say: > The metric here should be based on relevance (actual PKGBUILD > downloads) and time since it become orphan. Sounds perfect. But we currently don't have a way (or not that I'm aware of anyway) to do this without opening each package manually. Having even a weekly/monthly script run through that data and present a list of old/possible unused orphans would be pretty helpful. - Justin
