package EOL

[Michael J. Knox]

You need to stop thinking in terms of branches etc.

an orphan status is black and white

has a maintainer or it doesn't

It has nothing to do with which branch it may end up in if someone takes 
ownership of the orphan.

Michael

Patrice Dumas wrote:
>> 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
>