Mark skeleton for deprecation.

[jezdez]

Description

This follows more or less the same pattern as #4645. Fixes #4640.

Checklist - did you ...

• Add a file to the news directory (using the template) for the next release's release notes?
• [ ] Add / update necessary tests?
• [ ] Add / update outdated documentation?

[dholth]

Seems pretty simple, straightforward.

[jezdez]

pre-commit.ci autofix

[travishathaway]

LGTM

[dbast]

Are we sure we really want to deprecate the cran skeleton already?

• This afaik is still true: [WIP]cran support grayskull#423 (comment)
• The existing cran skeleton afaik was still used during the last Anaconda cran build out, as it can generate like almost 100% buildable recipes
• conda-forge (+ https://github.com/bgruening/conda_r_skeleton_helper maintained by the conda-forge/r group) still relies on it.

[jezdez]

Are we sure we really want to deprecate the cran skeleton already?

• This afaik is still true: [WIP]cran support grayskull#423 (comment)
• The existing cran skeleton afaik was still used during the last Anaconda cran build out, as it can generate like almost 100% buildable recipes
• conda-forge (+ bgruening/conda_r_skeleton_helper maintained by the conda-forge/r group) still relies on it.

For the record, this change does not deprecate skeleton but simply marks the code as pending deprecation, meaning that we intend to deprecate it in the future. We've set the time of deprecation to happen in the 4.0.0 release (currently).

Note
We've discussed adopting CEP 8 and CEP 9 for conda-build as well, so that the version number might change to the applicable version number, when we adopt them. But then the same practice applies: "pending deprecation" means "far in the future", and enough time to evolve the code and work on grayskull.

This change will provide both maintainers and users a predictable time window to solve the issues listed above by working with @marcelotrevisani and @bgruening (et al) to update grayskull. The alternative is an endless hand-wringing about how we can overcome the maintenance issues in skeleton.

If Anaconda is intending to use skeleton for the next cran build out, they may still do that a) until 4.0.0 is released (if they have to upgrade) or b) by using an older version of conda-build.

Of course, I hope by then we'll have enough Anaconda build engineers contribute actively to grayskull 😃

[kenodegard]

before we proceed with marking this for deprecation I'd like to see a conda-skeleton vs. grayskull comparison table and a promise to support the missing features in the near future

perhaps it's more appropriate to deprecate the functionality of conda-skeleton that grayskull already does but still keep the stuff that has not been implemented yet?

[ForgottenProgramme]

@kenodegard, this blog post has a grayskull vs conda-skeleton comparision table which was based off of the comparision provided here.

[github-actions]

Hi there, thank you for your contribution!

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed automatically if no further activity occurs.

If you would like this pull request to remain open please:

1. Rebase and verify the changes still work
2. Leave a comment with the current status

NOTE: If this pull request was closed prematurely, please leave a comment.

Thanks!

[github-actions]

Hi there, thank you for your contribution!

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed automatically if no further activity occurs.

If you would like this pull request to remain open please:

1. Rebase and verify the changes still work
2. Leave a comment with the current status

NOTE: If this pull request was closed prematurely, please leave a comment.

Thanks!