From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: Removing the attic package Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2016 10:20:36 +0200 Message-ID: <87d1kirc4r.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20160904021256.GA21539@jasmine> <874m5vvmi8.fsf@we.make.ritual.n0.is> <20160904184416.GB29947@jasmine> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46022) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bgp92-0003UZ-0x for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Sep 2016 04:20:44 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bgp8x-0001Tn-SN for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Sep 2016 04:20:42 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20160904184416.GB29947@jasmine> (Leo Famulari's message of "Sun, 4 Sep 2016 14:44:16 -0400") 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: Leo Famulari Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Hi! Leo Famulari skribis: > I don't want to steer new users towards this broken software, and I > think removing the package is a safe choice. Current Attic users could > continue to use it, because it won't be removed from their profile > unless they do `guix package --remove attic`. Since, AIUI, Borg is a compatible =E2=80=9Ccontinuation=E2=80=9D of Attic, = it makes sense to remove Attic. I had an idea to use a =E2=80=98superseded=E2=80=99 entry in =E2=80=98prope= rties=E2=80=99 that would tell =E2=80=98guix package=E2=80=99 et al. to upgrade to the new package: (package (name "attic") ;; =E2=80=A6 (properties `((superseded . ,borg)))) ENOSYS, though. > And Borg can convert Attic repos for users who are interested in > moving on, so these users will not lose access to their data even if > they do uninstall Attic on their machines. > > Do we have any guidelines about "retiring" packages? Not yet! Of course there=E2=80=99s a fine line here: we cannot systematically retire 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 provided = by a fork, so I see no obstacle in removing it. What do people think? Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99.