[Slackbuilds-users] Orphaned Builds FAQ (draft) RFC

[Willy Sudiarto Raharjo]

>Having a package removed automatically after N days, only because it
>has no maintainer is a bit strict in my opinion.  There are many
>"maintained" packages that don't see an update for periods longer
>than N: Maybe the upstream hasn't updated it, maybe the maintainer
>did not, what have you.  The only difference between these two cases
>is that one of them is labeled "unmaintained" and the other is not.
>
>I think another dimension should be added to this criteria.
>Something along the lines of "If there is an open ticket on
>this package AND it has been unmaintained for this long".
>By "ticket" here, I don't necessarily mean there should be a ticketing
>system in place, but more like if the build fails and there's no one
>to fix it.

We check with upstream and maintainer's activity before orphaning them
We might miss it sometimes (we are all humans anyway), but that's why
we have a grace period of N days. To give time people to verify or
confirm about it. If a maintainer steps up, that would be ideal. If
not, then it will be removed after some time.

>While I was writing this, I noticed that lack of a build failure
>is not enough for a good package.  It should also be tested.
>Something that we hope maintainers do using their packages routinely.
>But is that really the case?
>
>I just have mixed feelings about this.

So far, we can only do build test using CI becase we don't provide
binaries, we only provides scripts to build the source into Slackware
packages.

We can't test every scripts in our machine manually.
That's up to users/maintainers who actually use that apps/libraries


--
Willy Sudiarto Raharjo
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 870 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.slackbuilds.org/pipermail/slackbuilds-users/attachments/20260715/07deac29/attachment.asc>