[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Removing the attic package
From: |
Efraim Flashner |
Subject: |
Re: Removing the attic package |
Date: |
Mon, 5 Sep 2016 12:29:56 +0300 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.7.0 (2016-08-17) |
On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 10:20:36AM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Leo Famulari <address@hidden> skribis:
>
> >
> > Do we have any guidelines about "retiring" packages?
>
> Not yet!
>
> Of course there’s a fine line here: we cannot systematically retire
> packages “just” because they have bugs (all of them do ;-)). So we have
> to be cautious. In this case, it can be considered a serious bug in the
> package’s core functionality, *and* there’s a fix provided by a fork, so
> I see no obstacle in removing it.
>
> What do people think?
>
> Thanks,
> Ludo’.
>
I think it makes sense to change the description that this package is
slated for eventual removal. Another example is pinentry. We now have 4
pinentry packages, and the original pinentry package just points to
pinentry-gtk. I think it would make sense in that case to change the
description to something like `the pinentry package in guix is
depreciated, please remove it and install pinentry-gtk to retain the
same functinality' or something along those lines.
In this case something about attic having serious unpatched flaws, is
unmaintained, and that borg is a fork & continuation of it, would be a
good change.
That might keep new people from installing it, but how would we get
people who have already installed it to uninstall it? Or to see the
message?
--
Efraim Flashner <address@hidden> אפרים פלשנר
GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D 14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351
Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
- Removing the attic package, Leo Famulari, 2016/09/03
- Re: Removing the attic package, ng0, 2016/09/04
- Superseded packages, Ludovic Courtès, 2016/09/06
- Re: Superseded packages, Leo Famulari, 2016/09/10
- Re: Superseded packages, Ludovic Courtès, 2016/09/11
- Re: Superseded packages, Leo Famulari, 2016/09/11
- Re: Superseded packages, Ludovic Courtès, 2016/09/11
- Re: Superseded packages, Leo Famulari, 2016/09/20
- Re: Superseded packages, Ludovic Courtès, 2016/09/23
- Re: Superseded packages, Leo Famulari, 2016/09/25