Migrated, Replaced, and Depreciated Repositories

[Nosferican]

A few packages are identified as deprecated in the description, are owned by JuliaArchive, redirect to other packages, etc. Should the Owner and RepositoryName be adjusted or updated?

Maybe this is a separate issue, but could a project status shield be part of the PackageEvaluator data and scrape the shield for it?

[IainNZ]

If a package is depreceated, it should set upper limit on version. There is an old issue related to making this documented: JuliaLang/METADATA.jl#347 But it might be all made irrelevant by Pkg3 anyway. The owner/repo name should be automatically inferred from METADATA. If METADATA is wrong, it should be updated. Re: project status shields, maybe? It sounds time-expensive and possibly complicates this already complicated machinery.

…

On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 2:53 AM, José Bayoán Santiago Calderón (史志鼎) < ***@***.***> wrote: A few packages are identified as deprecated in the description, are owned by JuliaArchive, redirect to other packages, etc. Should the Owner and RepositoryName be adjusted or updated? Maybe this is a separate issue, but could a project status shield be part of the PackageEvaluator data and scrape the shield for it? — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#204>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAqRm6VDHydFl5pwbWXzrqtTUN2iWJCdks5t6dkHgaJpZM4UfXxi> .

-- *Iain Dunning <https://iaindunning.com>*

[Nosferican]

I guess this can be tabled and upstreamed to the new stdlib/Pkg and update this package to take advantage of the new features implemented there accordingly.

[IainNZ]

Great, sounds reasonable.