package EOL

[Michael J. Knox]

Patrice Dumas wrote:
>> orphaned = maintainable, but with out a maintainer
>> legacy = unmaintainable and with out a maintainer
> 
> legacy (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