[bug#32482] [PATCH] gnu: obnam: Add deprecation warning.

[bug#32482] [PATCH] gnu: obnam: Add deprecation warning.

[Tobias Geerinckx-Rice]

* gnu/packages/backup.scm (obnam)[synopsis, description]: Note its
retirement.
---

Guix!

A bit silly since the package fails to build anyway[0]. I'm not capable nor willing to fix it. Debian's (actually, upstream's) ‘solution’ was simply to remove the package[0].

I'd rather follow their example if nobody steps up to fix it, but Leo[1] made a good point about removing backup tools that may be someone's only link to the past.

An alternative is to add a prominent deprecation warning to our obnam package. Something like this. There's no clear successor or alternative to use with DEPRECATED-PACKAGE.

Let me know if and what you think,

T G-R

[0]: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=877159
[1]: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=32303#13

 gnu/packages/backup.scm | 15 +++++++++------
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/gnu/packages/backup.scm b/gnu/packages/backup.scm
index 754dfa1a4..978505914 100644
--- a/gnu/packages/backup.scm
+++ b/gnu/packages/backup.scm
@@ -749,12 +749,15 @@ NTFS volumes using @code{ntfs-3g}, preserving NTFS-specific attributes.")
        ("python2-pep8" ,python2-pep8)
        ("python2-pylint" ,python2-pylint)))
     (home-page "https://obnam.org/")
-    (synopsis "Easy and secure backup program")
-    (description "Obnam is an easy, secure backup program.  Features
-include snapshot backups, data de-duplication and encrypted backups
-using GnuPG.  Backups can be stored on local hard disks, or online via
-the SSH SFTP protocol.  The backup server, if used, does not require
-any special software, on top of SSH.")
+    (synopsis "Retired backup program")
+    (description
+     "Warning: @uref{https://blog.liw.fi/posts/2017/08/13/retiring_obnam/,
+the Obnam project is retired}.  You should use another backup solution instead.
+
+Obnam was an easy, secure backup program.  Features included snapshot backups,
+data de-duplication and encrypted backups using GnuPG.  Backups can be stored on
+local hard disks, or online via the SSH SFTP protocol.  The backup server, if
+used, does not require any special software, on top of SSH.")
     (license license:gpl3+)))
 
 (define-public dirvish
-- 
2.18.0

[bug#32482] [PATCH] gnu: obnam: Add deprecation warning.

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi!

(+Cc: Leo.)

Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me@tobias.gr> skribis:

> * gnu/packages/backup.scm (obnam)[synopsis, description]: Note its
> retirement.
> ---
>
> Guix!
>
> A bit silly since the package fails to build anyway[0]. I'm not capable nor willing to fix it. Debian's (actually, upstream's) ‘solution’ was simply to remove the package[0].
>
> I'd rather follow their example if nobody steps up to fix it, but Leo[1] made a good point about removing backup tools that may be someone's only link to the past.

The patch LGTM!

> An alternative is to add a prominent deprecation warning to our obnam package. Something like this. There's no clear successor or alternative to use with DEPRECATED-PACKAGE.

If this sort of problem occurs frequently enough, we could add a special
“obsolete” or “insecure” package property and have the UI print a
warning when attempting to install such a package.

Thanks,
Ludo’.

[bug#32482] [PATCH] gnu: obnam: Add deprecation warning.

[Leo Famulari]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1169 bytes --]

On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 04:55:23PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> (+Cc: Leo.)
> 
> Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me@tobias.gr> skribis:
> 
> > * gnu/packages/backup.scm (obnam)[synopsis, description]: Note its
> > retirement.
> > ---
> >
> > Guix!
> >
> > A bit silly since the package fails to build anyway[0]. I'm not capable nor willing to fix it. Debian's (actually, upstream's) ‘solution’ was simply to remove the package[0].
> >
> > I'd rather follow their example if nobody steps up to fix it, but Leo[1] made a good point about removing backup tools that may be someone's only link to the past.
> 
> The patch LGTM!

+1 

> > An alternative is to add a prominent deprecation warning to our obnam package. Something like this. There's no clear successor or alternative to use with DEPRECATED-PACKAGE.
> 
> If this sort of problem occurs frequently enough, we could add a special
> “obsolete” or “insecure” package property and have the UI print a
> warning when attempting to install such a package.

Yes, it could be helpful. Although, the question of what is "obsolete"
and "insecure" is relative and subjective ;)

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

bug#32482: [PATCH] gnu: obnam: Add deprecation warning.

[Tobias Geerinckx-Rice]

Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me@tobias.gr> wrote:
> * gnu/packages/backup.scm (obnam)[synopsis, description]: Note 
> its
> retirement.

Pushed as a93de1ae9efbed3270967eda59b1dd1078c0213b.
 
Kind regards,

T G-R