Package Behavior¶
Each compatibility package is intentionally thin: package metadata, minimal import surface preservation, build glue, and documentation pointing at the canonical replacement.
Thinness is the design goal here. These packages should preserve a path, not become a parallel product line with its own growing surface area.
These compatibility pages should make legacy names understandable without romanticizing them. Their value is in helping readers migrate with less ambiguity, not in making the old names feel equally current.
Visual Summary¶
flowchart RL
page["Package Behavior<br/>clarifies: map old names | choose migration | judge retirement"]
classDef page fill:#dbeafe,stroke:#1d4ed8,color:#1e3a8a,stroke-width:2px;
classDef positive fill:#dcfce7,stroke:#16a34a,color:#14532d;
classDef caution fill:#fee2e2,stroke:#dc2626,color:#7f1d1d;
classDef anchor fill:#ede9fe,stroke:#7c3aed,color:#4c1d95;
classDef action fill:#fef3c7,stroke:#d97706,color:#7c2d12;
legacy1["command names"]
legacy1 --> page
legacy2["distribution names"]
legacy2 --> page
legacy3["import names"]
legacy3 --> page
canon1["new work"]
page --> canon1
canon2["current handbook surfaces"]
page --> canon2
canon3["current packages"]
page --> canon3
pressure1["retirement readiness"]
pressure1 -.should shorten the life of.-> page
pressure2["do not normalize the old name"]
pressure2 -.should shorten the life of.-> page
pressure3["migration pressure"]
pressure3 -.should shorten the life of.-> page
class page page;
class legacy1,legacy2,legacy3 caution;
class canon1,canon2,canon3 positive;
class pressure1,pressure2,pressure3 action;
Expected Behavior¶
- preserve name-based compatibility
- avoid becoming an independent product surface
- defer real behavior to the canonical package
Concrete Anchors¶
packages/compat-*for the preserved legacy packages- the compatibility package
README.mdfiles for canonical targets - the matching canonical package docs for current behavior and new work
Use This Page When¶
- you are tracing a legacy package name back to its canonical replacement
- you need migration guidance rather than product implementation detail
- you are deciding whether a compatibility surface still deserves to exist
Decision Rule¶
Use Package Behavior to decide whether a preserved legacy name is still serving a real migration need. If the only reason to keep it is habit rather than an identified dependent environment, the section should bias the reviewer toward migration or retirement planning.
What This Page Answers¶
- which legacy surface is still preserved
- when new work should move to the canonical package instead
- what evidence would justify retiring a compatibility package
Reviewer Lens¶
- compare legacy names here with the compatibility package metadata and README targets
- check that migration advice still points at current canonical docs
- confirm that compatibility language does not accidentally encourage new work to start here
Next Checks¶
- move to the canonical package docs once the current target package is known
- inspect compatibility package metadata if the question is about what remains preserved
- use this section again only when evaluating migration progress or retirement readiness
Honesty Boundary¶
This section documents preserved legacy surfaces, but it does not claim those legacy names are the preferred place for new work or long-term design growth. If a legacy name remains, that is a migration fact, not a design endorsement.
Purpose¶
This page describes the intended minimalism of the compatibility layer.
Stability¶
Keep it aligned with the actual package contents in packages/compat-*.