On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Brad Fanella <bradfane...@archlinux.us> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 03:18:19AM +0800, Ray Rashif wrote: >> Anyway, we cannot mass-orphan them without checking. It is simply not >> right, no matter the statistics. For example, cutegod [1] is owned by >> Dragonlord, a TU. He might have his reasons. Like him, many others who >> are not TUs might have their reasons. >> >> Anyway, I consider this more of a TODO. >> >> [1] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=14119 > > Well, in most cases, they are flagged out of date for a good reason. > > For example, cutegod no longer has a project page up nor is the actual source > available.
Read the first comment on the AUR site for cutegod: "Comment by: eyecreate on Fri, 06 Aug 2010 13:04:34 +0000 url/website is now: http://mfgames.com/cutegod/start source package is: http://mfgames.com/releases/cutegod/cutegod-0.3.0.tar.bz2" ...so it *does* have a project page and available source code, but the package should be updated to reflect that. My $0.02, if a package has been marked out of date and hasn't had any activity for a long time, I would think it makes more sense to just contact the maintainers rather than blindly orphaning. There could definitely be legit reasons for many of them or even mistaken flaggings. If any of the emails to the maintainers bounce due to an inaccurate/old email address, then go ahead and orphan them at that point so someone else can maintain it. Loui is also right, the discussion period should have started before the voting period began. -- Aaron "ElasticDog" Schaefer