Re: Merging the purge-python2-packages branch

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi,

zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> skribis:

> On Tue, 31 May 2022 at 15:07, Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com> 
> wrote:
>
>>> Well, as a hobbyist, I am fine with such purge.  As a scientific
>>> practitioner using Guix at work, it is more annoying…
>>
>> Agreed.  My understanding is that scientists making use of Guix already
>> use a variety of Guix channels, so I'd assume the now missing bits can
>> be fitted in Guix-Past or a suitable place without causing too much of a
>> change to their workflow.
>
> This assumption about scientists is not rooted, IMHO.  What I can say is
> that, in my lab, some people are still using python2- variants as ’bamm’
> for example.  They are not packager and they have other fishes to fry;
> they use Guix to have the things done, they are not hobbyists who like
> tweaking their computational environment. :-)

I’m sure you’re right.

The question boils down to: how can we maintain a general-purpose
package collection?

It’s great that you’re voicing the concerns of the scientific community.
At the end of the day though, someone has to maintain all this code.
We’re removing packages from Guix proper, letting interested users
either pin their software environment or maintain those packages in a
channel of their own.  In the latter case, the maintenance burden is
transferred.

The transition can be difficult; surely, some user out there will
discover all of a sudden that their favorite package disappeared.  As
engineers who support scientific users, you and I (and others) can help
smooth that by pasting package definitions that we know are still used
into Guix-Past or some other channels.

In the end, it can have a good side effect: getting scientists aware of,
and ideally involved in, the maintenance of their own infrastructure.
Maybe you have an argument to recruit an new engineer on your team?  :-)

Ludo’.