On Sun, Oct 03, 2010 at 10:03:25PM +0300, Konstantinos Karantias wrote: > I'm not a TU, but I don't agree. Package sources may not be updated by then, > so the packages doesn't actually need any modifications. > > In my opinion, you should examine every package in detail before deleting > it. > > (In other words, I agree with Xyne :P) > > On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 9:57 PM, Xyne <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Brad Fanella wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Oct 03, 2010 at 07:54:42PM +0200, Jakob Gruber wrote: > > > > Hi TUs, > > > > > > > > I've just created a new proposal concerning the orphaning of all > > packages > > > > marked 'out of date' which have not been updated (or submitted) since > > before > > > > January 1st, 2009. For details, see the actual proposal text. > > > > > > > > The voting period ends on October 10th, please cast your votes! > > > > > > > > schuay > > > > > > Yeah, as long as they haven't been updated for a while (as you said, > > January 1st, 2009), then I'm all for it! > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Brad > > > > I've cast a "yes" vote. I also move to name this "Operation Oliver Twist" > > and to > > name the orphaning script "twister". > > > > One problem that might arise though is if a stable package (i.e. one that > > almost never gets updated upstream) has been recently flagged out-of-date > > then > > it might get orphaned (a malicious user who is aware of the impending > > operation might even write a script to flag such packages out-of-date). > > Perhaps > > you could cross-reference the last activity of the maintainer when deciding > > whether to delete a package, e.g. last package action <= 2009-01-01 and > > last > > maintainer action <= xxxx-xx-xx. > > > > That shouldn't add much complexity to the code but it might improve the > > handling of a few fringe cases. I'm really just floating the idea though. > > > > Regards, > > Xyne > >
Also, I know this was only mentioned on the TU voting page, but there are currently 525 packages that are out of date that fit into this category. Checking/orphaning all of them by hand wouldn't be practical. -- Brad
