On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 8:57 PM, Xyne <x...@archlinux.ca> wrote: > On 2013-06-18 13:48 +0200 > Karol Blazewicz wrote: > >>What's the policy wrt to packages that have been submitted years ago >>and are neither developed upstream nor maintained in the AUR since >>then? Just let them be or get rid of them as they're of no use? >>If there're old unmaintained packages foo and foo-git, is it OK to >>request removing at least one of them? Which one? >> >>https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/a4/ >>https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/a4-bzr/ >> >>The PKGBUILD need updating but it still builds and runs so I can pick >>it up, update and orphan it. I don't know which filetypes does it open >>(.odp is not recognized) and the editor doesn't work, so you can't >>create a new presentation from scratch. >>It's man page is of no help. > > > Packages should only be removed if they conflict with policy (copies of > official repo packages, malware, illegal packages) or if upstream is dead. > Even > if the PKGBUILD is an ancient relic from the age of Judd in need of a complete > rewrite, we tend to leave them as placeholders.
AUR lacks 'mark package as broken' feature, I guess I can leave a comment that says it's broken + post compile errors etc. Maybe somebody will post a fix ... With regard to dead upstream, do I have to Google around to see if they moved it somewhere or is it OK to lazily submit for deletion? I'm talking about orphaned packages w/o an updated PKGBUILD in the comments or at least a comment that says upstream moved to a different place. > .odp is a Libre-/OpenOffice file extension btw. I know, I didn't expect it tow work, but I have no idea what kind of presentations are they talking about. > Regards, > Xyne