On Friday 26 January 2007 01:05, Greg Chicares wrote:

> On 2007-1-26 0:37 UTC, Earnie Boyd wrote:

> > We already have Snapshots. The packages currently in Proposed are for

> > the most extent Unmaintained.


> Okay, I agree: of eight "Proposed" packages, only one is dated

> within the last twelve months, and half are from 2003.

There does appear to be an overlap in purpose for Snapshot/Proposed/Candidate.

I've tended to view `Proposed' as somewhere to put contributed packages, somewhat related to MinGW, but not considered as officially supported by the MinGW Developers; perhaps `Contributed' would serve better, as a name.

Of the eight currently designated `Proposed', I doubt if Danny would consider his Dwarf2 GCC variant as unmaintained. I certainly don't consider my own `execwrap' library as unmaintained; it's functionally complete, and stable, in terms of my design goals for it, so I'm not expending development effort on it, but if I get any bug reports or feature requests related to it, I'll address them.

On the remaining six, I don't wish to comment; perhaps the original contributers would care to do so, if they are reading this. If not, and if we are unable to contact the original maintainers, then I'd say we can safely class them as unmaintained, but do we simply drop them, or do we move them to an `Unmaintained' package category? (SF will keep them anyway, but if we don't keep them affiliated with some package, they will drop out of sight).