Re: Question on the process of packge withdrawal

On +2023-02-28 18:16:18 +0100, Simon Tournier wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 at 17:26, wrote: > > > IMO, it's a matter of storing the junk where it will not be a toxic > > liability > > and nuisance, yet easily discovered by someone looking for "parts." > > Well, I will not call that

Re: Question on the process of packge withdrawal

Hi, On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 at 17:26, wrote: > IMO, it's a matter of storing the junk where it will not be a toxic liability > and nuisance, yet easily discovered by someone looking for "parts." Well, I will not call that "junk". :-) IMHO, this is discoverable since it is part of the Git history

Re: Question on the process of packge withdrawal

On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 03:57:33PM +0100, Andreas Enge wrote: > Updating packages that noone is interested in is an unnecessary drag > on volunteers' time. This is the key point, in my opinion. Those who wanted to use this package were very welcome to do something about it. And they are still

Re: Question on the process of packge withdrawal

Hi, On +2023-02-28 11:30:21 +0100, Simon Tournier wrote: > > I proposed to remove the package because it was broken and no one was > willing to fix it. What is the point to keep broken packages? > What is the purpose of a junk-yard for broken cars? I think there is some use :) I kept an old

Re: Question on the process of packge withdrawal

Hello, Am Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 08:11:52PM + schrieb Sharlatan Hellseher: > If we check > > > commit removing jrnl variable which has it's source pointing to >

Re: Question on the process of packge withdrawal

Hi, On dim., 26 févr. 2023 at 20:11, Sharlatan Hellseher wrote: > Other example > > > the reason it's not updated at - > development was moved to

Re: Question on the process of packge withdrawal

On Mon, Feb 27, 2023, at 12:12, Maxim Cournoyer wrote: > I think packages removal should go to the patch tracker, with a CC to > guix-devel to give more visibility to let time for all parties to > comment or find a solution (perhaps a maintained fork exists, etc.) I agree that removal should go

Re: Question on the process of packge withdrawal

Hi, Sharlatan Hellseher writes: [...] > Other example > > > the reason it's not updated at - > development was moved to .

Question on the process of packge withdrawal

Hi Guix! I've noticed a tendency in core-updates and staging of withdrawing old packages, packages which were created from forks in the past or packages failing to build due to increased complexity of the package. If we check