That almost sounds like an "unstable" channel.
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 9:57 PM, Alex Berg <chex...@gmail.com> wrote: > Rather than removing unmaintained packages, can we make them available as > a separate, opt-in channel? > On Jan 28, 2014 6:43 PM, "Jan Malakhovski" <o...@oxij.org> wrote: > >> On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 10:36:39 -0500 >> Shea Levy <s...@shealevy.com> wrote: >> >> > Thoughts? If we did decide this was a good idea, we should set aside >> > some time period by which people should unmaintain packages they don't >> > want this responsibility for and adopt packages they do. >> >> For what it worth, I think unmaintained packages should not be removed >> just for the sake of it, especially when/if their nix-expressions are >> nontrivial. >> >> Suppose currently I'm the only user (or even maybe "ex-user") of a >> package, the package is some obscure userspace util and so there >> aren't any security concerns involved, it works (or even maybe >> "worked") for me, but I don't have any time whatsoever to maintain it. >> >> * First, this "remove unmaintained" policy discourages adding new >> packages to the public nixpkgs by users that are unable to maintain >> stuff. In the example above, I would better store the package in my >> own branch than risk it being unexpectedly removed. This would >> probably imply duplication of work in case somebody else will want to >> have it at some later point. I wouldn't search all the nixpkgs' forks >> for a possibility that somebody already has an expression for this >> package. >> * Second, I believe making a broken package work is usually easier >> than writing the nix-expression from scratch. Searching repository >> history for old removed versions of nix-expressions would be painful. >> >> I would rather drop this "remove unmaintained" altogether, at least >> for current requirements for being a maintainer (especially about the >> "timely fashion"). Marking unmaintained (or even better: unmaintained >> and potentially exploitable (which I would define as: it's a daemon or >> some other package uses it)) packages broken and notifying >> contributors about this fact looks okay. >> >> Cheers, >> Jan >> _______________________________________________ >> nix-dev mailing list >> nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl >> http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev >> > > _______________________________________________ > nix-dev mailing list > nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl > http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev > >
_______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev