value of "charity" package ownership?

[Ray Kohler-3]

For a while now, I've been adopting packages that I'm not actually
interested in, and in some cases don't really even understand, just because
I have the time to help out and want to be a nice guy. I'm having second
thoughts about the wisdom of this. Should I orphan these packages, on the
off-chance that somebody more appropriate wants to own them? Is a mediocre
maintainer better than no maintainer?

[Daniel J Griffiths]

Ray Kohler wrote:
> For a while now, I've been adopting packages that I'm not actually
> interested in, and in some cases don't really even understand, just because
> I have the time to help out and want to be a nice guy. I'm having second
> thoughts about the wisdom of this. Should I orphan these packages, on the
> off-chance that somebody more appropriate wants to own them? Is a mediocre
> maintainer better than no maintainer?
>
>  
If you feel the need to abandon a package or two, feel free to let us
know... someone will probably be happy to take them off your hands. :P

--
Daniel J Griffiths (Ghost1227)
griffithsdj@...
http://ghost1227.com

[Daenyth Blank]

Only take packages you're motivated to maintain. If that means only
the ones you use, do that. If it means that you'll take whatever
package is orphaned, do that. Do whatever you like, just don't burn
yourself out just to keep a package from being an orphan :)

[Ray Kohler-3]

On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 7:20 PM, Daniel J Griffiths
<ghost1227@...>wrote:

> Ray Kohler wrote:
>
>> For a while now, I've been adopting packages that I'm not actually
>> interested in, and in some cases don't really even understand, just
>> because
>> I have the time to help out and want to be a nice guy. I'm having second
>> thoughts about the wisdom of this. Should I orphan these packages, on the
>> off-chance that somebody more appropriate wants to own them? Is a mediocre
>> maintainer better than no maintainer?
>>
>>
>>
> If you feel the need to abandon a package or two, feel free to let us
> know... someone will probably be happy to take them off your hands. :P

Ok, I've orphaned the following packages, which are ether difficult in some
way for me, or for which I would be unable to support any problems users may
find:

dvdwizard
eclim
festival-hts-voices
ffmpeg-pspvc
go-oo-bin-base
krb5-crypto
lib32-freeglut
lib32-gmp
lib32-jdk
lib32-libasyncns
lib32-libcap
lib32-libopenssl2
lib32-libsasl
lib32-libvorbis
lib32-libxp
lib32-pulseaudio
lib32-xulrunner
libcapi20
libtorrent-unstable
megamario
nspluginwrapper-ubuntu
paq8
poco
qtjambi
shrip
sysbench
task
veusz
vilefault
virtualbox_bin_additions
x264-pspvc

[Jaime Oyarzun Knittel]

Ray Kohler wrote:
[...]
> virtualbox_bin_additions

Adopted. I use virtualbox a lot, so I hope I can be a good
mantainer/tester :)

--
mitoyarzun
http://www.archlinux.cl/

[Daniel J Griffiths]

Ray Kohler wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 7:20 PM, Daniel J Griffiths
> <ghost1227@...>wrote:
>
>  
>> Ray Kohler wrote:
>>
>>    
>>> For a while now, I've been adopting packages that I'm not actually
>>> interested in, and in some cases don't really even understand, just
>>> because
>>> I have the time to help out and want to be a nice guy. I'm having second
>>> thoughts about the wisdom of this. Should I orphan these packages, on the
>>> off-chance that somebody more appropriate wants to own them? Is a mediocre
>>> maintainer better than no maintainer?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>> If you feel the need to abandon a package or two, feel free to let us
>> know... someone will probably be happy to take them off your hands. :P
>>    
>
>
> Ok, I've orphaned the following packages, which are ether difficult in some
> way for me, or for which I would be unable to support any problems users may
> find:
>
> dvdwizard
> eclim
> festival-hts-voices
> ffmpeg-pspvc
> go-oo-bin-base
> krb5-crypto
> lib32-freeglut
> lib32-gmp
> lib32-jdk
> lib32-libasyncns
> lib32-libcap
> lib32-libopenssl2
> lib32-libsasl
> lib32-libvorbis
> lib32-libxp
> lib32-pulseaudio
> lib32-xulrunner
> libcapi20
> libtorrent-unstable
> megamario
> nspluginwrapper-ubuntu
> paq8
> poco
> qtjambi
> shrip
> sysbench
> task
> veusz
> vilefault
> virtualbox_bin_additions
> x264-pspvc
>
>  

Took sysbench and shrip

--
Daniel J Griffiths (Ghost1227)
griffithsdj@...
http://ghost1227.com

[nathan owe.]

Jaime Oyarzun Knittel wrote:

> Ray Kohler wrote:
> [...]
>  
>> virtualbox_bin_additions
>>    
>
> Adopted. I use virtualbox a lot, so I hope I can be a good
> mantainer/tester :)
>
>  

Adopted dvdwizard, no need to let it go around by itself :p and more
pkgs for me lol. also cleaned it up as well, needed it

[Tomás Acauan Schertel]

I was waiting for these:

ffmpeg-pspvc
x264-pspvc
pspvc

=D

--
Tomás A. Schertel
http://tomas.archlinux-br.org/
----------------------------------------------
Linux Registered User #304838
Arch Linux User
http://www.archlinux-br.org/
----------------------------------------------


On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 2:30 AM, nathan owe. <ndowens04@...> wrote:

> Jaime Oyarzun Knittel wrote:
>
>> Ray Kohler wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>
>>> virtualbox_bin_additions
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Adopted. I use virtualbox a lot, so I hope I can be a good
>> mantainer/tester :)
>>
>>
>>
> Adopted dvdwizard, no need to let it go around by itself :p and more pkgs
> for me lol. also cleaned it up as well, needed it
>

[Ray Kohler-3]

On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Tomás Acauan Schertel
<tschertel@...>wrote:

> I was waiting for these:
>
> ffmpeg-pspvc
> x264-pspvc
> pspvc
>

I heard a rumor that "normal" ffmpeg and x264 are now sufficient for this
purpose, and that's why pspvc hasn't been updated for such a long time. It's
also why I didn't feel motivated to maintain them - I didn't know if anyone
was still using them much any longer.

[Tomás Acauan Schertel]

I heard those rumors too.
I'll find out.

--
Tomás A. Schertel
http://tomas.archlinux-br.org/
----------------------------------------------
Linux Registered User #304838
Arch Linux User
http://www.archlinux-br.org/
----------------------------------------------


On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Ray Kohler <ataraxia937@...> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Tomás Acauan Schertel
> <tschertel@...>wrote:
>
> > I was waiting for these:
> >
> > ffmpeg-pspvc
> > x264-pspvc
> > pspvc
> >
>
> I heard a rumor that "normal" ffmpeg and x264 are now sufficient for this
> purpose, and that's why pspvc hasn't been updated for such a long time.
> It's
> also why I didn't feel motivated to maintain them - I didn't know if anyone
> was still using them much any longer.
>