El jue, 11 mar 2021 a las 17:40, Elvis Stansvik via arch-general (<arch-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>) escribió: > > Yes, "abandoned" is good indeed. Although, I would prefer to have orphan > > packages on my system be called "unneeded" packages. It is much more > > precise in > > my opinion. > > > > I also think, completely irregardless of the double usage question and how > you can either think of it as problematic or not depending on how narrow > contexts you consider, that the term in AUR should be changed. I suggest > "unmaintained" though. Agree. Is better definition, "abandoned" can create confusion and you can think that is "abandoned" by upstream, but "unmaintained" takes the point. > I think "unneeded" instead of "orphan" for the pacman context sounds good > too, but have no strong opinion. Or "unnecessary". Greetings. -- Óscar García Amor | ogarcia at moire.org | http://ogarcia.me
