On 19 July 2013 15:39, Anatol Pomozov <anatol.pomo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi > > In this case the maintainer should unmark the package and clearly > explain in comments why the package cannot be upgraded to the new > version. Ideally maintainer should also work with upstream on > resolving the issues. But silently leave the package in "out-of-date" > state forever is not the best solution neither.
The problem is that the users don't read. It's happening all the time. I had a package once or twice that couldn't be updated but even though I stated it in the comments people were still marking it out of date. BTW, leaving the package as out of date is a good reminder that the maintainer should check if the problem was fixed every now and then. On 19 July 2013 15:45, Doug Newgard <scimmi...@outlook.com> wrote: > ---------------------------------------- > > Do you consider clicking a link twice (once to unflag, again to reflag) every > 6 months or so overly burdensome? It's simple to forget about that and it's nonsense to do it just to keep your package. I don't think it's any better than the current approach with emailing the maintainer first. As I mentioned earlier, I don't have anything against mass orphaning if the maintainer is clearly inactive and his package has problems, but this automatic approach doesn't take that into account. Lukas
