Am Thu, Mar 26, 2026 at 11:02:03AM +0100 schrieb civodul: > ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ > In 006-package-deprecation.md: > > diff --git a/006-package-deprecation.md b/006-package-deprecation.md > --- /dev/null > +++ b/006-package-deprecation.md > @@ -0,0 +153,4 @@ > +a small number of packages depending on them and that are not updated to > +newer library versions. In particular, this concerns libraries with rapidly > +changing APIs such as fmt and boost, but in the long run we will also wish > +to get rid of Python 2, Qt 5 or GTK+ 2, for instance. > > Lots of words: this is redundant with the end-of-life/unmaintained wording, > no?
Going through the GCD once more, I tend to agree. This is also more motivation than actual criteria for removal. So I have modified things as follows: - Leaf packages "of input type" may be removed (no change); old compiler versions are cited as examples, but notice that there is still a requirement for consensus, so if there is an argument for keeping them, they will be kept; - Leaf "applications" are kept unless there are security problems (no change); - Packages inside the graph, to which the passage above belonged: I have replaced this by "For instance, we will want to remove older versions of packages for which newer versions are already packaged, remove packages that are unmaintained or have reached end of life upstream, or that suffer from security vulnerabilities." Compared to the current wording, this explicitly adds "security" and "old versions for which we have a newer one" (which may or may not have been covered by "EOL" in the current formulation). The "for instance" gives a bit of leeway if we decide to be broader, without requiring a new GCD. And again, nothing is automatic; "Reasonable efforts shall be made beforehand to update or otherwise preserve dependent packages." and there are still the consensus provisions. Andreas
