Re: 185 Packages that look orphaned
>I looked through the differences between testing and unstable and
>picked out everything older than 100 days. Reasons why those packages
>are not in testing are:
>- non-free / contrib packages nobody tried to compile
Don't be too hard on these; getting them compiled on all arches has been
next to impossible for quite a while. :-/ Frankly, the practical advice I'd
give is to stop making these Architecture: all. :-(
>- FTBFS or RC bugs
Don't include packages with "Keep this out of testing" RC bugs.
>- possibly failure of the testing script to detect it
>- other packages hold you back (get involved in those other packages)
Don't be too hard on these; people are often unaware of their dependency
chains; and also some packages have been stuck in four or more different
dependency chains, which can be a real pain in the neck.
>Noone has cared enough about these packages to get them compiled,
>fixed or pushed into sarge so I am assuming the packages don't have a
>caring maintainer or fan community. Ergo they should be orphaned.
Minus the situations I commented on above.
>If I hear nothing about a package soon I will start with the oldest and do a
>few packages every day.
I strongly advise starting by only orphaning those packages with RC bugs open
longer than a week (and without "keep this out of testing" bugs). Please
give the others a break for now, as some of them may actually be maintained,
and at any rate they deserve closer scrutiny.
You'll have *plenty* to orphan for quite a while if you just do these, which
are more definitely unmaintained than the others.