[aur-general] value of "charity" package ownership?

[Daniel J Griffiths]

Ray Kohler wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 7:20 PM, Daniel J Griffiths
> <ghost1227 at archlinux.us>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 at archlinux.us
http://ghost1227.com