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 "ju

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 o

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 wel

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 VW

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 th

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 . Th