On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 14:54:56 -0300 Giancarlo Razzolini <grazzol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > We already have a mechanism for disowning a package and allowing > > others to maintain it without deleting it. It's called orphaning. > > > > This is not the mechanism for that, and it is the reason why the > co-maintainer functionality was created. Using disown for this is wrong. > On the contrary, this is exactly the mechanism for that. You disown a package so that someone else can adopt it. Why else would you disown a package? > > Perhaps if TUs are able to view the last updated time from a search > > fable, they could see an orphaned package with no updates for X > > months. But as has been said before, orphaned does not mean useless > > or broken. > > > > Oprhan packages can't be updated, right? Sure they can, why wouldn't they be? Doug