3 ms·
None of the alternatives were something like "rename, so it isn't attached to them any more". I understand their issues, at present they can push new releases v
by CJefferson 5y ago
None of the alternatives were something like "rename, so it isn't attached to them any more". I understand their issues, at present they can push new releases via pip, with this many nix users could have very out of date packages.
- miloignis 5y agoIf I understand you, they offered that very thing in https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/126326#issuecomment-860050496 https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/126326#issuecomment-86... and it first wasn't answered, and then was dismissed with "This was already answered. Please don't repack my source in this repository was my request. I don't see how your suggestion is changing that." That response was what confused me as to the problem with packaging the library, as it seems like that would fix the inundated-with-support-requests issue.
- CJefferson 5y agoI missed that bit, thanks. I find it weird they seemed to suggest they would also consider reimplementing the whole package, with the same API.