Re: [aur-general] Deletion of orphaned packages on AUR4
Rob McCathie Wrote in message: > > > Just a query: Why were packages i added to AUR4, ensured were in good > working order (and made an enhancement to one of the packages compared > to the last release on AUR3), know are used by at least some users, > and then orphaned so some other interested party can take over > maintenance, were deleted from AUR4? > > compiz-gtk-standalone was actually the ONLY package on AUR4 that > provided the Compiz 0.8 series core component. > Since it's deletion there is now at least one package on AUR4 that has > unresolvable dependencies. > (eg. https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ccsm/ ) > > Regards, > Rob McCathie > > I was wondering the same thing... Many of the kde-applications git packages that I uploaded to AUR4 and then disowned ( but were working fine) have been deleted, and I can't find any related request. --
Re: [aur-general] Deletion of orphaned packages on AUR4
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 17:09 Antonio Rojas wrote: > Rob McCathie > Wrote in message: > > > > > > > Just a query: Why were packages i added to AUR4, ensured were in good > > working order (and made an enhancement to one of the packages compared > > to the last release on AUR3), know are used by at least some users, > > and then orphaned so some other interested party can take over > > maintenance, were deleted from AUR4? > > > > compiz-gtk-standalone was actually the ONLY package on AUR4 that > > provided the Compiz 0.8 series core component. > > Since it's deletion there is now at least one package on AUR4 that has > > unresolvable dependencies. > > (eg. https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ccsm/ ) > > > > Regards, > > Rob McCathie > > > > > > I was wondering the same thing... Many of the kde-applications git > packages that I uploaded to AUR4 and then disowned ( but were > working fine) have been deleted, and I can't find any related > request. > -- > I also disowned an LSI raid card utility a few days ago, and it got deleted within 2 hours. What's going on with this? - Justin
[aur-general] Signoff report for [community-testing]
=== Signoff report for [community-testing] === https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/ There are currently: * 0 new packages in last 24 hours * 0 known bad packages * 0 packages not accepting signoffs * 0 fully signed off packages * 2 packages missing signoffs * 0 packages older than 14 days (Note: the word 'package' as used here refers to packages as grouped by pkgbase, architecture, and repository; e.g., one PKGBUILD produces one package per architecture, even if it is a split package.) == Incomplete signoffs for [community] (2 total) == * dnscrypt-proxy-1.6.0-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * dnscrypt-proxy-1.6.0-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours == 1. ronald - 2 signoffs
Re: [aur-general] Deletion of orphaned packages on AUR4
A certain TU went around deleting orphaned stuff… won't name them though ;-)
Re: [aur-general] Deletion of orphaned packages on AUR4
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 07:36:53AM +, Justin Dray wrote: > On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 17:09 Antonio Rojas wrote: > > > Rob McCathie > > Wrote in message: > > > > > > > > > > > Just a query: Why were packages i added to AUR4, ensured were in good > > > working order (and made an enhancement to one of the packages compared > > > to the last release on AUR3), know are used by at least some users, > > > and then orphaned so some other interested party can take over > > > maintenance, were deleted from AUR4? > > > > > > compiz-gtk-standalone was actually the ONLY package on AUR4 that > > > provided the Compiz 0.8 series core component. > > > Since it's deletion there is now at least one package on AUR4 that has > > > unresolvable dependencies. > > > (eg. https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ccsm/ ) > > > > > > Regards, > > > Rob McCathie > > > > > > > > > > I was wondering the same thing... Many of the kde-applications git > > packages that I uploaded to AUR4 and then disowned ( but were > > working fine) have been deleted, and I can't find any related > > request. > > -- > > > I also disowned an LSI raid card utility a few days ago, and it got deleted > within 2 hours. What's going on with this? > > - Justin I guess you should either be responsible for a package or not upload one at all. AUR3 was full of really bad orphaned packages. In AUR4 you can add co-maintainers or even publish your repos to some service as github and accept pull requests. I personally don't see any reason behind uploading a package and then immediately disowning it. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [aur-general] Deletion of orphaned packages on AUR4
Well, the first email states Kyrias did this… Le 11 août 2015 10:15:42 GMT+02:00, David Phillips a écrit : >A certain TU went around deleting orphaned stuff… won't name them >though ;-)
Re: [aur-general] Deletion of orphaned packages on AUR4
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Bruno Pagani wrote: > Well, the first email states Kyrias did this… > > Le 11 août 2015 10:15:42 GMT+02:00, David Phillips > a écrit : > >A certain TU went around deleting orphaned stuff… won't name them > >though ;-) > Don't know what the motivation is behind this particular TU (or any others) prowling around looking for orphans to delete, but there are two key issues, I think: - First, the move to aurweb4 was technically about maintainability and modernization of the AUR. But a big side benefit was the "thinning of the herd" (my words alone) that would take place, in terms of lackluster maintainership. A key TU behind the AUR4 redesign admitted as much in an earlier reply to me, @ 2 months ago. He disapproved of the "thinning of the herd" analogy for some reason, but that was clearly what he meant. There were to many orphans, and to many no-show maintainers. Probably still are. - Second, uploading something to AUR4 then immediately orphaning it is stupid. Why not just hold onto it for a while and look for co-maintainers, or a new maintainer? By orphaning, you just became the "thinned" part of the herd.
Re: [aur-general] Deletion of orphaned packages on AUR4
Am 11.08.2015 um 14:08 schrieb Simon Hanna: > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 07:36:53AM +, Justin Dray wrote: >> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 17:09 Antonio Rojas wrote: >>> Rob McCathie >>> Wrote in message: Just a query: Why were packages i added to AUR4, ensured were in good working order (and made an enhancement to one of the packages compared to the last release on AUR3), know are used by at least some users, and then orphaned so some other interested party can take over maintenance, were deleted from AUR4? compiz-gtk-standalone was actually the ONLY package on AUR4 that provided the Compiz 0.8 series core component. Since it's deletion there is now at least one package on AUR4 that has unresolvable dependencies. (eg. https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ccsm/ ) >>> >>> I was wondering the same thing... Many of the kde-applications git >>> packages that I uploaded to AUR4 and then disowned ( but were >>> working fine) have been deleted, and I can't find any related >>> request. >>> >> I also disowned an LSI raid card utility a few days ago, and it got deleted >> within 2 hours. What's going on with this? >> > I guess you should either be responsible for a package or not upload one at > all. > AUR3 was full of really bad orphaned packages. > In AUR4 you can add co-maintainers or even publish your repos to some service > as github and accept > pull requests. > I personally don't see any reason behind uploading a package and then > immediately disowning it. Well, to give an example on my end: The LIO target (for iSCI and such) For most of the LIO related packages there are original packages that are open source, but with no good community management (got better though). Then there are "free branch" forks as community projects. I uploaded both to AUR3 and also to AUR4. I maintain the free branch, because I think this is the better variant. Having the original on AUR would be good, so I also updloaded these, but I personally don't want to maintain these. There are however some users that still want to use the original. There aren't many changes either, since the original doesn't have releases often. (the free branch has lots of releases) the "free branch": https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/targetcli-fb/ https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/python-rtslib-fb/ The "original" included: lio-utils/lio-snmp python2-rtslib targetcli (all deleted from AUR recently, lio-utils had more votes than any of the free branch packages) related wiki: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/ISCSI_Target#Setup_with_LIO_Target I don't know why people want to use but not maintain the original packages. Debian still uses the original variant, that alone is reason enough to have the option to use the original on Arch Linux. Long talk short: No, I don't think orphaned packages should be deleted. -- JonnyJD PS: for anybody interested in these particular PKGBUILDs: https://github.com/JonnyJD/PKGBUILDs/tree/95f6d672ccf9baa151a9287a35b6f328073bd59b/_lio
Re: [aur-general] Deletion of orphaned packages on AUR4
On 11 Aug 2015, at 3:48 pm +0200, Johannes Dewender wrote: > [snip] > I uploaded both to AUR3 and also to AUR4. > I maintain the free branch, because I think this is the better variant. > Having the original on AUR would be good, so I also updloaded these, but > I personally don't want to maintain these. > There are however some users that still want to use the original. > There aren't many changes either, since the original doesn't have > releases often. > (the free branch has lots of releases) If and only if there is somebody who "still wants to use the original," they'll upload and maintain a PKGBUILD themselves. So it is with any package. Remember, Arch assumes a baseline of competence--or at least willingness to read--on the part of the user, and Arch's packaging tools are dead simple if you actually bother to learn them. There's no need to upload scripts to the AUR on behalf of some nebulous concept of the average user, because the average Arch user can do it themselves if they want to. Have some faith in your fellow users, and let's all work to make the new AUR less of a horrible mess than the old one. iff
Re: [aur-general] aurweb 4.0.0 released
Em 11-08-2015 02:58, Oon-Ee Ng escreveu: > Just to note on this point - some (many?) Arch users would not have > noticed anything during the migration process as their helpers would > have continued to get the old PKGBUILDs from aur.archlinux.org during > the migration process. It is only when aur4 got 'moved' to > aur.archlinux.org that these users would have noticed anything happen > (in fact some still won't, depending on their workflow and the > specific tools they use). Yes, most users didn't noticed. And probably won't. But, I believe that a fair share of users was aware of the migration, given the feedback I received on my own packages during the transition. I'd say about 30-35%. Perhaps the admins of the site can get some of the statistics of their analytics and shed some light on this. > > I have no opinion in either case, PKGBUILDs aren't THAT difficult to > write, but felt I had to point this out. There are some ones, with patches and all sort of changes, that are harder to write. In those cases it helps to have the PKGBUILD (and patches) at hand. Again, I'm not against them being somewhere, perhaps an all in one github repo. Cheers, Giancarlo Razzolini
Re: [aur-general] Deletion of orphaned packages on AUR4
> Second, uploading something to AUR4 then immediately orphaning it is > stupid. Why not just hold onto it for a while and look for co-maintainers, > or a new maintainer? By orphaning, you just became the "thinned" part of > the herd. Well, if it's orphaned another potential maintainer who comes across it, might be more likely to pick it up. If it's *not* orphaned, they'd have to contact you first to ask you to transfer ownership or add them as co-maintainer - and even though that's not a *big* social cost, it is one nonetheless, and some potential maintainers will just not bother. I.e. it's a matter of making things run more smoothly/conveniently. IMO orphaned packages should *only* be deleted after an ample grace period (for example, when they've been orphaned for at least 4 months or so).
[aur-general] My Packages Disappeared
All packages I was the maintainer of have all of a sudden disappeared. I do not remember all the packages I adopted, but this includes 'gnome-rdp' and 'bitdefender'. Not only do I maintain zero packages now, they are not even listed on the AUR now. Regards, Wayne Hartmann
Re: [aur-general] AUR Package deleted: pypy-setuptools
On 8 August 2015 at 21:32, wrote: > Kyrias deleted "pypy-setuptools". > > You will no longer receive notifications about this package. > Sorry why is this package deleted? I didn't find any deletion request on aur-requests . Best Regards, Yen Chi Hsuan
Re: [aur-general] My Packages Disappeared
On 11 August 2015 at 18:47, Wayne Hartmann wrote: > All packages I was the maintainer of have all of a sudden disappeared. I > do not > remember all the packages I adopted, but this includes 'gnome-rdp' and > 'bitdefender'. Not only do I maintain zero packages now, they are not even > listed on the AUR now. > > Regards, > > Wayne Hartmann > Did you upload them to AUR 4? Sorry if it's an obvious question it just keeps coming up. -- benoliver999.com
Re: [aur-general] My Packages Disappeared
On 11/08/15 01:47 PM, Wayne Hartmann wrote: > All packages I was the maintainer of have all of a sudden disappeared. I do > not > remember all the packages I adopted, but this includes 'gnome-rdp' and > 'bitdefender'. Not only do I maintain zero packages now, they are not even > listed on the AUR now. > > Regards, > > Wayne Hartmann You're aware of the AUR4 migration, right? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [aur-general] My Packages Disappeared
I found a partial answer in the archives (new to the mailing list). Seems all aur3 packages are gone forever? Regards, Wayne Hartmann > On August 11, 2015 at 1:47 PM Wayne Hartmann wrote: > > All packages I was the maintainer of have all of a sudden disappeared. I do > not > remember all the packages I adopted, but this includes 'gnome-rdp' and > 'bitdefender'. Not only do I maintain zero packages now, they are not even > listed on the AUR now. > > Regards, > > Wayne Hartmann
Re: [aur-general] My Packages Disappeared
Tue, 11 Aug 2015 13:47:33 -0400 (EDT) Wayne Hartmann : > All packages I was the maintainer of have all of a sudden > disappeared. I do not remember all the packages I adopted, but this > includes 'gnome-rdp' and 'bitdefender'. Not only do I maintain zero > packages now, they are not even listed on the AUR now. > > Regards, > > Wayne Hartmann They didn't "disappear" - they got deleted. You got at least two mails informing about the AUR v4 reorganisation and pending deletion of not migrated packages, the mailing lists were full of it, plus there had been a prominent notice on the (old) AUR homepage for the last two months. To get you up to speed: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_User_Repository#Submitting_packages https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_User_Repository#Git_repository http://pkgbuild.com/git/aur-mirror.git/tree/bitdefender --byte pgpKgEqZL5ECi.pgp Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP
Re: [aur-general] My Packages Disappeared
On 11 August 2015 at 18:54, Wayne Hartmann wrote: > I found a partial answer in the archives (new to the mailing list). Seems > all > aur3 packages are gone forever? > > > Regards, > > Wayne Hartmann > > On August 11, 2015 at 1:47 PM Wayne Hartmann wrote: > > > > All packages I was the maintainer of have all of a sudden disappeared. I > do > > not > > remember all the packages I adopted, but this includes 'gnome-rdp' and > > 'bitdefender'. Not only do I maintain zero packages now, they are not > even > > listed on the AUR now. > > > > Regards, > > > > Wayne Hartmann > That's the long and short of it. -- benoliver999.com
Re: [aur-general] AUR Package deleted: pypy-setuptools
Hi, The thread on this list titled "Deletion of orphaned packages on AUR4" may be of use to you: https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2015-August/031357.html Thanks
Re: [aur-general] Deletion of orphaned packages on AUR4
David Kaylor Wrote in message: > - Second, uploading something to AUR4 then immediately orphaning it is > stupid. Why not just hold onto it for a while and look for co-maintainers, > or a new maintainer? By orphaning, you just became the "thinned" part of > the herd. > Just because you can't think of a reason doesn't mean it's "stupid". TUs and developers may drop packages from the repos to AUR and then orphan them for someone to adopt. Someone may upload a package as a dependency of another package they maintain, which they're not interested in maintaining. Just to name a few possible reasons. --
Re: [aur-general] Deletion of orphaned packages on AUR4
I suppose some may subscribe to the view that if someone wants it badly enough, they'll submit, maintain and stick with it.
Re: [aur-general] Deletion of orphaned packages on AUR4
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 07:24 David Phillips wrote: > I suppose some may subscribe to the view that if someone wants it > badly enough, they'll submit, maintain and stick with it. > In my case, I uploaded a perfectly working package for LSI raid controllers, but someone commented that a newer version was available, I no longer use any LSI controllers and can't test that it is working correctly with the new version, I said as such, and orphaned the package only for it to be deleted within a couple hours. If orphaned packages are going to be deleted straight away I would have hung on to it. But then what is the point of their being an orphan button? There's already a delete one. It's seems really poor form to be just deleting any random orphaned packages off the AUR. Perhaps TUs that are doing this should no longer be TUs since they are clearly abusing that privilege to do things however they want instead of within the guidelines set by the community. - Justin
Re: [aur-general] Deletion of orphaned packages on AUR4
Hi, There seems to be quite some confusion about the package migration process and about package deletion. I would like to clarify my point of view. Hopefully it serves as a basis for discussion (i.e. technical discussion without attacking anybody personally). As already mentioned a couple of times, cleaning up the AUR was one of the incentives for having users resubmit their packages. This has several advantages: * Working packages: New users are confused when an AUR package does not build. However, packages are often broken because of being outdated or unmaintained. * Less clutter: Working packages are easier to find. Package statistics are not distorted. * Storage: Less space used for packages that do not work. On the AUR server and on mirrors. So please do not upload packages any packages to AUR 4.0.0, unless you are interested in maintaining them. If a package has not been resubmitted to the AUR 4.0.0, the maintainer did not care about it for at least two months. Please either decide to maintain such a package or wait for somebody else willing to do so. Along these lines, it might also make sense to generally delete packages that have been unmaintained for a long time. Maybe have a script to automatically remove packages that have been orphaned for a couple of months. Note that we do keep the Git repositories of deleted packages, so if anybody wants to maintain the package later, he can always clone the repository of the deleted package, fix the package and simply push it afterwards. We are also working on a command to revive deleted packages without having to add a new commit. Package deletion is equivalent to "hiding it from the website", it does not mean that the package and all its Git history are gone. Orphaning a package is a preliminary stage that only tags a package without hiding it. The "missing dependency" argument was brought up a couple of times. If you discover such a case, please contact the maintainer of the package that requires the missing package and ask him to submit it as well. You should only maintain an AUR package if you are using it, so everybody should be interested in maintaining dependencies of their packages as well (unless they are maintained by somebody else already, of course). Regards, Lukas
Re: [aur-general] Deletion of orphaned packages on AUR4
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:23 PM, David Phillips wrote: > I suppose some may subscribe to the view that if someone wants it > badly enough, they'll submit, maintain and stick with it. > Exactly.
Re: [aur-general] Deletion of orphaned packages on AUR4
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 11:16 PM, Lukas Fleischer wrote: > Hi, > > There seems to be quite some confusion about the package migration > process and about package deletion. I would like to clarify my point of > view. Hopefully it serves as a basis for discussion (i.e. technical > discussion without attacking anybody personally). > > As already mentioned a couple of times, cleaning up the AUR was one of > the incentives for having users resubmit their packages. This has > several advantages: > > * Working packages: New users are confused when an AUR package does not > build. However, packages are often broken because of being outdated or > unmaintained. > > * Less clutter: Working packages are easier to find. Package statistics > are not distorted. > > * Storage: Less space used for packages that do not work. On the AUR > server and on mirrors. > > So please do not upload packages any packages to AUR 4.0.0, unless you > are interested in maintaining them. If a package has not been > resubmitted to the AUR 4.0.0, the maintainer did not care about it for > at least two months. Please either decide to maintain such a package or > wait for somebody else willing to do so. > > Along these lines, it might also make sense to generally delete packages > that have been unmaintained for a long time. Maybe have a script to > automatically remove packages that have been orphaned for a couple of > months. Note that we do keep the Git repositories of deleted packages, > so if anybody wants to maintain the package later, he can always clone > the repository of the deleted package, fix the package and simply push > it afterwards. We are also working on a command to revive deleted > packages without having to add a new commit. Package deletion is > equivalent to "hiding it from the website", it does not mean that the > package and all its Git history are gone. Orphaning a package is a > preliminary stage that only tags a package without hiding it. > > The "missing dependency" argument was brought up a couple of times. If > you discover such a case, please contact the maintainer of the package > that requires the missing package and ask him to submit it as well. You > should only maintain an AUR package if you are using it, so everybody > should be interested in maintaining dependencies of their packages as > well (unless they are maintained by somebody else already, of course). > > Regards, > Lukas > Thanks for clarifying your point of view Lukas. I think some AUR maintainers are out-of-the-loop on the migration issues, for one reason or another. I suspect some simply weren't subscribed to this list over the last few months.
Re: [aur-general] Deletion of orphaned packages on AUR4
> Thanks for clarifying your point of view Lukas. I think some AUR > maintainers are out-of-the-loop on the migration issues, for one reason or > another. I suspect some simply weren't subscribed to this list over the > last few months. Several notification emails were sent directly rather than via aur-general. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [aur-general] Deletion of orphaned packages on AUR4
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 05:16:03 +0200 Lukas Fleischer wrote: > Hi, > > There seems to be quite some confusion about the package migration > process and about package deletion. I would like to clarify my point of > view. Hopefully it serves as a basis for discussion (i.e. technical > discussion without attacking anybody personally). > > As already mentioned a couple of times, cleaning up the AUR was one of > the incentives for having users resubmit their packages. This has > several advantages: > > * Working packages: New users are confused when an AUR package does not > build. However, packages are often broken because of being outdated or > unmaintained. > > * Less clutter: Working packages are easier to find. Package statistics > are not distorted. > > * Storage: Less space used for packages that do not work. On the AUR > server and on mirrors. > > So please do not upload packages any packages to AUR 4.0.0, unless you > are interested in maintaining them. If a package has not been > resubmitted to the AUR 4.0.0, the maintainer did not care about it for > at least two months. Please either decide to maintain such a package or > wait for somebody else willing to do so. > > > > Regards, > Lukas You're making one massive and incorrect assumption: that packages that don't have an official "Maintainer" listed are broken. But you have no idea why they're orphaned. In my case, I have some that I'm actively trying to get maintainers for; in the mean time, I'm looking after them even though they are listed as being orphaned. Is this not to be allowed now? Should all "orphan" packages in the official repos be deleted, just assume nobody is looking after them? I updated one package just a few days before it was randomly deleted. There's other stories further up in this thread about them being deleted after only a few hours, all with no notice. If a time limit is to be implemented, it needs to be limit long enough that the package is both unlikely to be being used and unlikely to work anymore. A month or two wouldn't cut it. A notice should also be sent out to anyone set to get notifications for that package with enough lead time for someone to pick it up. Doug
Re: [aur-general] Deletion of orphaned packages on AUR4
> > Several notification emails were sent directly rather than via aur-general. > > Yes, but that isn't the same thing. Being subscribed to the list would (should?) have made people aware of most of the issues surrounding the migration, including the motivations behind it and the expectations of maintainers.
Re: [aur-general] Deletion of orphaned packages on AUR4
On 12/08/15 13:49, Doug Newgard wrote: In my case, I have some that I'm actively trying to get maintainers for; in the mean time, I'm looking after them even though they are listed as being orphaned. Is this not to be allowed now? Should all "orphan" packages in the official repos be deleted, just assume nobody is looking after them? I updated one package just a few days before it was randomly deleted. There's other stories further up in this thread about them being deleted after only a few hours, all with no notice. If a time limit is to be implemented, it needs to be limit long enough that the package is both unlikely to be being used and unlikely to work anymore. A month or two wouldn't cut it. A notice should also be sent out to anyone set to get notifications for that package with enough lead time for someone to pick it up. Doug Same here. I was still monitoring the couple of packages i'd orphaned, i was hoping someone would take over maintenance. For a time at least, i'd have addressed any issues with them. Anyways, i've re-added the packages and will stay maintainer of them until things settle down a bit. -- Regards, Rob McCathie
Re: [aur-general] Deletion of orphaned packages on AUR4
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 at 15:37 Rob McCathie wrote: > On 12/08/15 13:49, Doug Newgard wrote: > > In my case, I have some that I'm actively trying to get maintainers > > for; in the mean time, I'm looking after them even though they are > > listed as being orphaned. Is this not to be allowed now? Should all > > "orphan" packages in the official repos be deleted, just assume nobody > > is looking after them? I updated one package just a few days before it > > was randomly deleted. There's other stories further up in this thread > > about them being deleted after only a few hours, all with no notice. > > If a time limit is to be implemented, it needs to be limit long enough > > that the package is both unlikely to be being used and unlikely to > > work anymore. A month or two wouldn't cut it. A notice should also be > > sent out to anyone set to get notifications for that package with > > enough lead time for someone to pick it up. Doug > > Same here. I was still monitoring the couple of packages i'd orphaned, i > was hoping someone would take over maintenance. For a time at least, i'd > have addressed any issues with them. > > Anyways, i've re-added the packages and will stay maintainer of them > until things settle down a bit. > > -- > Regards, > > Rob McCathie > I've had to do the same thing. The problem is, if it isn't orphaned, and you try to update it when you get a chance it is hard to find a new maintainer. I've never seen someone ask for maintainership of a maintained and up-to-date package before. From the reports I'm seeing as well it's a single TU deleting them all. - Justin
