Maxim Cournoyer writes: > Believe it or not, I actually did! :-) I was replying to the first part > of your message, where you mentioned you were against packages removal. > My reply was giving support to devising policy that would define when > it's acceptable to prune the distribution of broken/unmaintained > packages, which is tangentially related to the topic of reporting broken > packages. Please don’t remove packages that are broken on the CI. I often had a case where no substitute was available but the package built just fine locally. This is not a perfect situation (nicer would be to track why it doesn’t come from CI — sometimes it’s just a resource problem on the CI), but if you removed a package I use that would break all updates for me. I had that in the past. It’s not a nice situation, because it not only break that one package but also prevents getting security updates until you find time to inspect what exactly is broken. And if you depend on that package, stuff stops working. Example: The changes to the Texlive packages currently break the PDF export of many pages for me — I have not found the deeper reason yet. And I usually cannot investigate such problems right-away, because I can’t just drop everything for hobby automation that should just keep working. If a change in packages breaks my manifest, that is extremely painful. Best wishes, Arne -- Unpolitisch sein heißt politisch sein, ohne es zu merken. draketo.de