On Thu, 2006-03-02 at 07:05 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > Am Mittwoch, den 01.03.2006, 10:37 -0700 schrieb Kevin Fenzi: > > I personally would suggest: > > > > d) remove all of them that aren't required by other packages. ACK. > > and then all the remaining ones that are required by other packages > > should be taken over by those people who's packages need them. I don't agree on this part - I find this to be rude to those maintainers requiring/depending on these packages. [Consider the perl packages, if one of those perl maintainers (who often maintain many packages, eg. JPO, Ville, Spot, Steve P. or me, would quit, this would push the others into a crisis.] Instead, I'd propose to add a new category, meaning "non-assigned, open to those maintainers needing it, but not dead". This would allow those maintainers who are depending on such packages to modify/update them without committing themselves to permanent maintainership. > But I got the impression that some people thinks it's to late to > remove the orphan packages. But if others agree with this idea I'm fine > with it. Opinions please! I go with Kevin. Remove all unused orphans from the repo. Whether and how to keep them in CVS would be another topic. Ralf -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
