<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
Robby Findler wrote at 12/06/2013 09:38 AM:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAL3TdON-U01HbxBpuSWHNL80SViG77KAQNjScaxsT9e7JMFgsg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<div class="im">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>You could also remove it from both planet repositories to
just
hide it from planet depending on your desire to support older versions
of racket. </div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
Wouldn't that break all code that has a direct or indirect dependency
on any version of that PLaneT package?
<div class="im"><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Yes. I should have been more clear: there are a number of
packages on planet that currently just don't work and for which there
are new package system variants. Depending on the authors' intentions
to support those planet packages, this may be a good idea. I'm
specifically thinking about authors that expect only newcomers to come
across them and then to get broken code and they would rather those
newcomers just didn't find the planet packages and instead found the
new package system's code, this might be a viable approach.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
All these years, I have had a different assumption of what it means for
a package or version to be added to the PLaneT server. If a package or
version was there at some point, then I would still expect it to still
be there, even if it doesn't work with the latest versions of Racket or
other things.<br>
<br>
>From my perspective, removing packages from PLaneT because one is not
able to maintain them (or perhaps wants to maintain them only in the
new package system, as you mention) doesn't seem like a great idea.
I'd rather see appropriate use of documentation and metadata to
indicate that, say, the package does not work with current versions of
Racket or that it is no longer being maintained.<br>
<br>
(The only cases in which I'd currently expect to see a version (not a
package) removed from PLaneT are if it was found to have a showstopper
security vulnerability, someone accidentally leaked very sensitive info
into the ".plt", or there was a court order.)<br>
<br>
As a practical matter, if others think that casually removing packages
from PLaneT is OK, then I'll just change how I use PLaneT accordingly,
rather than try to change people's minds. However, I do suspect that
that kind of measure erodes credibility a little, for practical and
research purposes.<br>
<br>
Neil V.<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>