On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 12:24 AM, Alexander Rødseth <[email protected]>wrote:
> Thank you for the comments, appreciate it! > > About causing panic when orphaning: the package will continue to be > available and work even if it's orphaned, but now there is a chance > that someone will pick up the thread where the previous maintainer > left of and improve and update the PKGBUILD. If someone panics from > this, perhaps it's still a good trade? > > The reason I'm asking is because I suspect that I'm more fond of > cleaning up old cruft than the average TU/Dev, and I don't wish to > orphan or delete packages in a way that is perceived as rash. > > In my opinion, being relatively quick to orphan, but hesitant to > delete, should result in a better AUR repository for everyone, as long > as the criterions for disowning packages is somewhat conservative. I > would say a user being inactive for more than a year is quite > sufficient. > > A comment from another TU or Dev would be especially helpful. > > -- > Sincerely, > Alexander Rødseth > xyproto / TU > I support this too. Orphaning is reversible and will most (preferably always :P) of the time lead to an improvement of the PKGBUILD, I see no reason not to do it when the user is clearly inactive. As for deletions, I would also tend to delete old stuff more easily, but I understand and respect the wish to keep placeholders in the AUR. Cheers, -- Maxime
