Em março 11, 2021 3:43 Matthias Bodenbinder via arch-general escreveu:
Hi,
in the arch world I see two different definition of an "orphan".
The pacman manpage says:
orphans - packages that were installed as dependencies
but are no longer required by any installed package.
For the AUR the definition of an "orphan" is
If all maintainers of an AUR package disown it, it will
become an "orphaned" package.
(https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/AUR_submission_guidelines#Maintaining_packages
)
This is confusing. Would it make sense to change the wording so that it
is not ambiguous anymore.
Your confusion comes from mixing the context of the package manager (pacman) in this case, and the actual maintainership of packages, which is a different context. So, both official packages [0] and AUR packages [1] can become orphans in the sense they don't have a maintainer anymore. This is different from the orphan in the context of a package manager. As long as you don't conflate both contexts, it's very easy to understand the differences between these orphans. Regards, Giancarlo Razzolini [0] https://archlinux.org/packages/?sort=&q=&maintainer=orphan&flagged= [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/?O=0&SeB=nd&K=&outdated=&SB=n&SO=a&PP=50&do_Orphans=Orphans
Attachment:
pgpUEYmo589KQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
