From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ricardo Wurmus Subject: Re: Removing the attic package Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2016 10:34:39 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20160904021256.GA21539@jasmine> <874m5vvmi8.fsf@we.make.ritual.n0.is> <20160904184416.GB29947@jasmine> <87d1kirc4r.fsf@gnu.org> 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]:49603) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bgpMh-0000je-Qe for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Sep 2016 04:34:52 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bgpMd-0004YQ-MR for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Sep 2016 04:34:50 -0400 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 Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: >> Do we have any guidelines about "retiring" packages? > > Not yet! > > Of course there=E2=80=99s a fine line here: we cannot systematically re= tire > 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 th= e > package=E2=80=99s core functionality, *and* there=E2=80=99s a fix provi= ded by a fork, so > I see no obstacle in removing it. This seems reasonable. ~~ Ricardo