Patrice Dumas wrote:
orphaned = maintainable, but with out a maintainer legacy = unmaintainable and with out a maintainerlegacy (use any other better name) could also be unmaintainable in devel branch but with a maintainer. So the package could still be maintained but would not have a devel or a new fc directory in cvs. So it would be a co-maintainership if somebody steps up to maintain it for devel.If there is also no objection, perhaps we can start a legacy packages page also, to house unmaintainable packages?You mean unmaintainable in devel? Otherwise it is just orphaned.
I think "legacy" is confusing what I am meaning. So I will refer to it as dropped/retired.
orphaned = no maintainer dropped/retired = no maintainer and unmaintainable That is my suggestion.If a package has a maintainer, then it does not need to be listed as an orphaned/dropped/retired package.
If a package has a maintainer and is unmaintainable, then that's the packagers problem to resolve.
I am wanting to make it clearer which packages are orphaned, which ones have been dropped/retired and clearly defining how a package gets a dropped/retired status.
Michael