If a package is "important" it should be compatible both with the next Nim version and the current one. If it's not getting updated then a fork of it with fixes should be tested. A package being important doesn't mean it has to be the best package either, as long as it's commonly used I think it's important.
Not to mention not all PRs to Nim are good ideas. There's not always a good reason to deprecate/remove stuff, and existing packages can sometimes be evidence of this. > I think is critical for the core devs to focus on fixing the Nim compiler Fixing the Nim compiler would imply making packages continue to work. Compiler devs should never have to make PRs to important packages. I would really like to know specifically what you're talking about as someone who has made both compiler and standard library PRs, including deprecations/removals, and had to PR to some packages. I've never considered it a hindrance or a bad thing.
