On 18 July 2013 23:24, Alexander Rødseth <rods...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > The two packages that are out of date has not been updated for three years. > > My plan is to orphan all his packages if nobody thinks that's a > horribly bad idea. > > I'm also interested in comments about what should be done for similar > situations in the future. I assume most users would be happy just to > see the pacakges being updated instead of hoarded and would think it > was fine if TUs just orphan them after a similar investigation of the > situation.
+1 from me. If the user is inactive for long time and the packages apparently needs care (this is actually quite important, because you can have VCS packages not updated for a long time and they will still work), they should be orhpaned. On 18 July 2013 23:56, Anatol Pomozov <anatol.pomo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi > IMHO Arch developers should be more proactive in disowning de-facto > orphaned packages. Something like "if a package is marked out-of-date > for more than 3 months then it disowns automatically". Similar rule > can be applied to all packages of inactive users. I'm strongly against the idea of automatic orphaning. Sometimes the package may be outdated simply because the new version doesn't work or has some serious issues. Lukas
