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 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 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 ~] # >> >> >> >> >> >