> Else the list of orphans will grow as we continue in "devel" and > old orphans exist only in the old branches. I don't really understand this sentence. Do you mean that the number of orphaned packages that don't have a devel branch (and, as time goes by, that don't have branches for branches that are newer than the branch that was active at the time the package was orphaned) will only grow? That seems to be quite normal, as long as fedora extras grow. Those packages will only disapear when all the fedora extras packages for a their newest branch are retired (maybe because the fedora core legacy has ceased to exist for that branch). Is it an issue? > I'm a proponent of the > all-or-nothing strategy: orphaned binaries are deleted from all active > (i.e. still supported branches). Once a new maintainer is found, he It will only prevent people from doing new installs, allready installed orphaned packages will still be there. So I con't see what's wrong with keeping them. But I don't see anything clearly wrong with removing them either. What do you exactly mean by supported? Do you mean branches associated with a fedora core version that is not eol? > could update and publish new builds. -- Pat -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
