package EOL

[Patrice Dumas]

> orphaned = no maintainer
> dropped/retired = no maintainer and unmaintainable

I don't see a clear distinction. For me both are orphaned. In the second
case it will require more work for a potential maintainer, or maybe the 
potential maintainer won't push it to devel/newer fc versions, but I
don't understand why there is a need to make 2 separate cases?

> If a package has a maintainer and is unmaintainable, then that's the 
> packagers problem to resolve.

Sure, but a way to resolve it could be to say: I don't push that package
to the devel branch. This should also be marked somewhere. But this may
not be what you are talking about.

> 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.

You mean that you would like to distinguish among orphaned package some
that are broken and should also be removed from previous releases, where
they exist as binary packages, and so remove the binary packages from 
repo?

--
Pat