Re: Thought about unmaintained package (Net_IRC in this case)

On Mon, 2004-12-13 at 18:47, Sean Coates wrote: > >> So gimme your feedback on this folks! > > Well, that's a good question. I suppose it makes sense. > > Sorry, I'm pretty new to PEAR-dev, but: > Is there an official way to deprecate a package? > For example, deprecate Net_IRC in favour of Net_SmartIRC. > This would only be possible for packages that have full replacements. > > And then bugs could be ignored (not actually closed, but similar to > 'bogus', and no new bugs would be allowed) for deprecated packages. > > S Well no we don't have any official way, but as Thomas says him self, that he's not going to fix any bugs unless he gets the diff for the fixes, hence someone else does it, I'd find it most logical just to suspend those bugs, if anyone picks up this package then good thing and we'll move them to open again. This of course is a rather special case, but for sure Net_SmartIRC is much better then Net_IRC, iirc that v2 of SmartIrc will be Net_IRCv2. Until now we have only in these cases made a comment on the package info page that the package has been "put down" by another superior package, like HTML_Form vs. HTML_QF (Daniel C though maintains HTML_Form now because pearweb needs it.) Anyway if a developer says he's not going to maintain the package anymore, not even bug fixes, and there is a superior package that has all the features and more, then I think we should move the bugs to suspended until further notice. We of course need to be able to deprecate in such a way (well just a extra field in the package table) so we can make the installer more aware that the package is deprecated, so it can give messages like "This package has been deprecated, are you sure you want to install [y][N]" or something like that. - Helgi