On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 at 04:20 Doug Newgard scim...@archlinux.info wrote: On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 15:07:57 -0300 Giancarlo Razzolini grazzol...@gmail.com wrote: Em 12-08-2015 15:01, Doug Newgard escreveu: On the contrary, this is exactly the mechanism for that. You disown a package so that someone else can adopt it. Why else would you disown a package? Let me rephrase it. Disowning a package isn't the mechanism for allowing others to maintain a package, if you still need/use/care for it. Co-maintainer functionality is for that. There were people on the old AUR that would disown a package so that someone else could update it, and then disown it again, and so on. This should end. You aren't getting it. If you don't want to maintain a package and want to make it available to others, you disown it. This doesn't mean you want it deleted, it simply means you want someone else to maintain it. If someone approaches you and want to help, you make them a co-maintainer. Two completely different things. Sure they can, why wouldn't they be? If someone adopt it. When they are in orphaned status, they can't. But, then again, if someone adopt it, then it wouldn't be deleted, and we wouldn't be having this discussion. Anyone can push to the repo of an orphaned package. That person then automatically becomes the maintainer, but will often simply disown it again. Doug There's definitely some discrepancies in how we're all thinking about how it should work (for the record I'm totally aligned with Doug in this regard), but I have to say: The metric here should be based on relevance (actual PKGBUILD downloads) and time since it become orphan. Sounds perfect. But we currently don't have a way (or not that I'm aware of anyway) to do this without opening each package manually. Having even a weekly/monthly script run through that data and present a list of old/possible unused orphans would be pretty helpful. - Justin