Efraim Flashner <efr...@flashner.co.il> writes: > We're now about a year out from the official EOL for python2 (Jan 1, > 2020). So far we've been not adding python2 variants of packages that > are new unless they're actually needed for something. Do we want to > start removing python2 packages when updating other packages if they are > leaf packages?
I think it's okay to start removing "leaf" Python 2 packages. In most cases they were probably never used anyway, or the dependents have transitioned to their Python 3 counterparts. We'll probably break some channels, but I'm sure our users won't have any difficulties adding them back to their own channels if need be. On a related note, we also have a number of [Python 3] packages that have been failing to build for a long time. Some of these are trivial, i.e. what "guix import" produces. It would be good to get rid of those as well, as the would-be user is much better off starting from "guix import" instead of first getting disappointed by the Guix package and then having to go through all the trouble of submitting a patch. Should we have some sort of policy or threshold for when to remove such packages? Maybe after 3-6 months?
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
