Re: Nano: Move nano editor from packages to core system - new issue

Re: Nano: Move nano editor from packages to core system - new issue

[Michael Tremer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1493 bytes --]

Hello Jon,

This is a little bit of a dilemma now.

So, there is only one tree for packages. I normally take all packages from the latest build and publish those. However, I do not manually delete packages because that rarely happens that we remove something. And if we do so, we normally remove something that is not used by anyone.

With nano, I could now just remove the package from the server, but then nobody who has not yet updated to the latest release can install it any more. If I leave it on the server, people can install it, and then uninstall it. After that, they won’t have nano any more.

I would therefore like to leave it on the server for a little bit longer, because although the second option has the disadvantage that people might uninstall it, they can simply re-install it again.

If we remove it in a couple of weeks, then that should be fine. People should upgrade soon and we generally do not support older releases. However, the release is only a day ago, and we should give people a little time to upgrade :)

-Michael

> On 28 Apr 2022, at 19:00, Jon Murphy <jcmurphy26(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Peter,
> 
> I see nano is now part of the core in CU 167.  Yay!
> 
> But it still appears in the Pakfire add-on list.  Ugh!!
> 
> 
> Jon
> 
> 
> [root(a)ipfire ~] # pakfire list | grep -A3 nano
> Name: nano
> ProgVersion: 6.1
> Release: 41
> 
> [root(a)ipfire ~] # 
> 
> 
> <Screen Shot 2022-04-27 at 10.16.34 PM.png>
> 
> 

Re: Nano: Move nano editor from packages to core system - new issue

[Jon Murphy]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1809 bytes --]

Hey Michael,

Removing in the future sounds fine.

I was more worried I had done something wrong when submitting nano.  Being my first I am skittish!

Thanks!
Jon

> On Apr 28, 2022, at 1:09 PM, Michael Tremer <michael.tremer(a)ipfire.org> wrote:
> 
> Hello Jon,
> 
> This is a little bit of a dilemma now.
> 
> So, there is only one tree for packages. I normally take all packages from the latest build and publish those. However, I do not manually delete packages because that rarely happens that we remove something. And if we do so, we normally remove something that is not used by anyone.
> 
> With nano, I could now just remove the package from the server, but then nobody who has not yet updated to the latest release can install it any more. If I leave it on the server, people can install it, and then uninstall it. After that, they won’t have nano any more.
> 
> I would therefore like to leave it on the server for a little bit longer, because although the second option has the disadvantage that people might uninstall it, they can simply re-install it again.
> 
> If we remove it in a couple of weeks, then that should be fine. People should upgrade soon and we generally do not support older releases. However, the release is only a day ago, and we should give people a little time to upgrade :)
> 
> -Michael
> 
>> On 28 Apr 2022, at 19:00, Jon Murphy <jcmurphy26(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Peter,
>> 
>> I see nano is now part of the core in CU 167.  Yay!
>> 
>> But it still appears in the Pakfire add-on list.  Ugh!!
>> 
>> 
>> Jon
>> 
>> 
>> [root(a)ipfire ~] # pakfire list | grep -A3 nano
>> Name: nano
>> ProgVersion: 6.1
>> Release: 41
>> 
>> [root(a)ipfire ~] # 
>> 
>> 
>> <Screen Shot 2022-04-27 at 10.16.34 PM.png>
>> 
>> 
> 

Re: Nano: Move nano editor from packages to core system - new issue

[Tom Rymes]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2214 bytes --]

I’d argue that the population of people who haven’t upgraded, but want nano is small enough that it’s a non-issue. Also, nano isn’t URGENT for anyone that might be unable to upgrade immediately. For most, though, just upgrade and it’s there.

Tom

> On Apr 28, 2022, at 2:44 PM, Jon Murphy <jcmurphy26(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hey Michael,
> 
> Removing in the future sounds fine.
> 
> I was more worried I had done something wrong when submitting nano.  Being my first I am skittish!
> 
> Thanks!
> Jon
> 
>> On Apr 28, 2022, at 1:09 PM, Michael Tremer <michael.tremer(a)ipfire.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Hello Jon,
>> 
>> This is a little bit of a dilemma now.
>> 
>> So, there is only one tree for packages. I normally take all packages from the latest build and publish those. However, I do not manually delete packages because that rarely happens that we remove something. And if we do so, we normally remove something that is not used by anyone.
>> 
>> With nano, I could now just remove the package from the server, but then nobody who has not yet updated to the latest release can install it any more. If I leave it on the server, people can install it, and then uninstall it. After that, they won’t have nano any more.
>> 
>> I would therefore like to leave it on the server for a little bit longer, because although the second option has the disadvantage that people might uninstall it, they can simply re-install it again.
>> 
>> If we remove it in a couple of weeks, then that should be fine. People should upgrade soon and we generally do not support older releases. However, the release is only a day ago, and we should give people a little time to upgrade :)
>> 
>> -Michael
>> 
>>>> On 28 Apr 2022, at 19:00, Jon Murphy <jcmurphy26(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Peter,
>>> 
>>> I see nano is now part of the core in CU 167.  Yay!
>>> 
>>> But it still appears in the Pakfire add-on list.  Ugh!!
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Jon
>>> 
>>> 
>>> [root(a)ipfire ~] # pakfire list | grep -A3 nano
>>> Name: nano
>>> ProgVersion: 6.1
>>> Release: 41
>>> 
>>> [root(a)ipfire ~] # 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> <Screen Shot 2022-04-27 at 10.16.34 PM.png>
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>