From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Efraim Flashner Subject: Re: Removing the attic package Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2016 12:29:56 +0300 Message-ID: <20160905092956.GC23794@macbook42.flashner.co.il> References: <20160904021256.GA21539@jasmine> <874m5vvmi8.fsf@we.make.ritual.n0.is> <20160904184416.GB29947@jasmine> <87d1kirc4r.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="EP0wieDxd4TSJjHq" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34144) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bgqEH-0003EL-CC for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Sep 2016 05:30:14 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bgqEC-0007ZE-9L for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Sep 2016 05:30:12 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87d1kirc4r.fsf@gnu.org> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org --EP0wieDxd4TSJjHq Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 10:20:36AM +0200, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: > Hi! >=20 > Leo Famulari skribis: >=20 > > > > Do we have any guidelines about "retiring" packages? >=20 > Not yet! >=20 > Of course there=E2=80=99s a fine line here: we cannot systematically reti= re > packages =E2=80=9Cjust=E2=80=9D 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=E2=80=99s core functionality, *and* there=E2=80=99s a fix provide= d by a fork, so > I see no obstacle in removing it. >=20 > What do people think? >=20 > Thanks, > Ludo=E2=80=99. >=20 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? --=20 Efraim Flashner =D7=90=D7=A4=D7=A8=D7=99=D7=9D = =D7=A4=D7=9C=D7=A9=D7=A0=D7=A8 GPG key =3D A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D 14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351 Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted --EP0wieDxd4TSJjHq Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJXzTsUAAoJEPTB05F+rO6TAMUP/RuZSMrNjUgG2Vj6MnhDo/N1 m+mjUfS9/F51omy2ZbpNmzIw3wtDG4OZP9ZtGSX0UjeV1xz/bH4yxtt/ZqPip9Xt /jV//pH4JK9J7tjoRvfJpOkiBtktCidR0VQGMJPlCUkiEl6prAESLXIdl4V7vzMY 5/pst9NYDNL1x9HNbyAvVy3F9nTtVr5h9LXP/nrtAMYTHg7kOXdTOI5qxblBHQZe 821/li4s5UnRhxC3MaELLU9+YB3Jo2XzB7y8XnZctNE9kpHSPKv3YPUQQr5gwQht NUNO7VJq2/HJod0pP5Ao/bFmekwlhWAPSKnTRCLLz5SGPtfpibpKIvzF+jvWasbn rrr+2gSrymwALWWb8Mkf1x2+nYu81/+S20Teg+sKPHXsNWVd+jmWyfpT45dA+1ep O6ynSOocxuX1VyiNYnv9eSVFTmx/4IU8h61gcqhgsUV7bz1e2VeuRF8wQRTP7D6R RxsqWsybG+Ju2US7WBjdBj3rFKeMO0W6KpNvhMSHwdEPPJ4JLP3N2vRypFJlILe+ 6kZbwpHErQEwLSMaPMRHHv72TUL17kT0KhR2yLOFGrvVwBgi8gVQGOf/9DdEgx6z X1uaUKEEyVYIIHgMgFLuXk9Xjf+Kp/y72F2uwU+A6h87xXO4bu72bf7k+7gA+GYN pWK7Y4XmMA/aMa1Q2kl7 =1S1I -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --EP0wieDxd4TSJjHq--