Archive `libusb1`, `iosbackup`, `mvt`

[hoechenberger]

Archive the following feedstocks due to maintainer inactivity. The currently provided versions are outdated and not functional on modern systems:

• libusb1, https://github.com/conda-forge/libusb1-feedstock/issues/4
• iosbackup, https://github.com/conda-forge/iosbackup-feedstock/issues/3
• mvt, https://github.com/conda-forge/mvt-feedstock/issues/23

Checklist:

• [ ] I want to mark a package as broken (or not broken):

  • [ ] Added a description of the problem with the package in the PR description.
  • [ ] Pinged the team for the package for their input.

• [x] I want to archive a feedstock:

  • [x] Pinged the team for that feedstock for their input.
  • [x] Make sure you have opened an issue on the feedstock explaining why it was archived.
  • [x] Linked that issue in this PR description.
  • [ ] Added links to any other relevant issues/PRs in the PR description.

• [ ] I want to request (or revoke) access to an opt-in CI resource:

  • [ ] Pinged the relevant feedstock team(s)
  • [ ] Added a small description explaining why access is needed

[beckermr]

We do not archive feedstocks just because they are not currently maintained. Best to leave them as they are.

[hoechenberger]

Ah ok. I thought that was the correct procedure as the docs say:

If a package is no longer maintained conda-forge will archive the repository.

https://conda-forge.org/docs/maintainer/updating_pkgs/#archiving-feedstocks

I suppose what bothers me most is that if a user installs one of these packages from conda-forge, they'll end up with an outdated version, which is probably not what they'd expect. Of course, archiving the feedstock won't fix this problem either.

[beckermr]

Ah so that statement is about the upstream software, not the feedstock. The use of "package" in that statement is confusing. We should change that. Thank you for reading the docs!

[hmaarrfk]

I didn't know that "unmaintained" was a threshold for archiving. I thought it was "upstream" unmaitaining the package for too long.

[beckermr]

Exactly @hmaarrfk. This is how we do it right now.

[hmaarrfk]

Exactly @hmaarrfk. This is how we do it right now.

Great. I think our messaged crossed!!!

[ocefpaf]

BTW archiving won't change the current packages and users will still get an outdated package. The only "fix" for that is more volunteers to pick up the maintenance of the feedstock.

[hoechenberger]

Got you! I will close this PR then. I'd like to amend the documentation on https://conda-forge.org/docs/maintainer/updating_pkgs/#archiving-feedstocks to resolve the ambiguity I was running into here. Could you please point me to the repository hosting the sources for these docs? Thanks!

[jaimergp]

@hoechenberger - see https://github.com/conda-forge/conda-forge.github.io.

Thanks!