'Twas brillig, and Johnny A. Solbu at 08/12/12 10:37 did gyre and gimble: > On Saturday 8. December 2012 11.06, Guillaume Rousse wrote: >>> Unless I misunderstand, adding it to «task-obsolete» does the same thing, >>> with a 2 week delay on deleting. >>> So the proper action would be to add it to «task-obsolete». >> That's still not the proper action. > > In other words, I did misunderstand. > >> Stop removing packages from end >> user machines just to remove them from the mirrors as a side effect of >> our package submission procedure. > > So what should we do? > The current packaging guidelines[1] says that this is the correct action for > obsolete packages, which a depcrecated package is. > If this is not the desired solution, then the guidelines should change. > Perhaps just clairfied as to what is an obsolete package, which belongs in > task-obsolete, and what is Not an obsolete package even if it's deprecated. > > [1] https://wiki.mageia.org/en/Packaging_guidelines#Obsoleting_a_package
I totally agree with Johnny here. If users want to keep unmaintained and no-longer-supplied packages on their machine (obviously making a concious decision to not get security updates etc. on such packages) then they are welcome to add task-obsolete to their urpmi skip lists. I see absolutely no problem with this and I don't consider this something that's done as a "side effect", rather it's a quite deliberate and concious mechanism to remove no longer supported packages from a users machine. Col -- Colin Guthrie colin(at)mageia.org http://colin.guthr.ie/ Day Job: Tribalogic Limited http://www.tribalogic.net/ Open Source: Mageia Contributor http://www.mageia.org/ PulseAudio Hacker http://www.pulseaudio.org/ Trac Hacker http://trac.edgewall.org/
