On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 2:04 PM Simon Tournier <zimon.touto...@gmail.com> wrote: [...] > Somehow, if we remove these Clang compilers, why do we keep all these > GCC compilers? Some are much more older, ones are used for > bootstrapping but are still publicly exposed. Why?
The removed packages failed to compile [0]. I believe this was due to the core-packages update to gcc-14, so the breakage was not sudden. > Again, I’ve nothing against cleaning but as said in [2,3,4], we need to > “standardize” these removals by a kind of policy. > > One cannot be back from a (summer) break and bang some packages that one > rely on had been removed because it’s productive summer for a peer. :-) Broken packages are already effectively "removed" while cluttering the system for everyone else. When fixed they can simply be re-added. > The question isn’t (not at all!) *if* we should remove, yes we must > remove old and/or broken packages. The question is *how*, i.e., we need > to have a common understanding, both end: What does it mean include a > new package? What does it mean “it’s safe to remove”? > > I think a GCD is the way to go but these days I’ve enough on my plate so > I cannot commit to draft something before the next months. If someone > wants to start, I’ll join with the pleasure! :-) +1 to a GCD. Ideally the surprises could be automated away. [0] https://codeberg.org/guix/guix/issues/1371#issuecomment-6321733
