> 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. > > This is confusing. Would it make sense to change the wording so that it > is not ambiguous anymore. In spite of the backlash that Matthias has got, I think he has a point. Yes, the contexts are different (dependencies and ownership), yet they are related (packages). Mind the curse of knowledge[1]: it's pretty clear what an orphan means once you know what it means, so perhaps it does not hurt to add a bit more clarity for newcomers. In my mind, the pacman term "orphan" fits no longer required leftovers well, because it deals with hierarchy and dependencies. On the other hand, the AUR's "orphan" has less to do with parents, but more with owners, maintainers (and caregivers?). Perhaps, semantic synonyms like unowned, unmaintained, disowned would be better suited. Now, a price and whether to change the existing terminology is a completely different matter of discussion. Maxim's 2¢. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_knowledge
