All versions of core2 were yanked and this causes downstream built fallouts.
It's fine to archive a crate and step back from it. Yet, yanking all possible versions of a crate causes all downstream crates to fail to build in a long chain. (See: bitstream-io/rav1e/image). Instead, a RUSTSEC unmaintained advisory is the preferred way to signal that action from all downstream crates is required without causing resolution failures directly. Unless there's something critically wrong, consider unyanking the crates.
See: image-rs/image#2909
For filing an unmaintained advisory: https://github.com/rustsec/advisory-db/blob/main/HOWTO_UNMAINTAINED.md (simply creating an issue and have someone come with the PR is fine, too).
Edit: I'm not sure I'm reaching the right people here. But since the repository pointed to by the Cargo.toml no longer allows filing issues and the contributor list here includes the author, and Github shows this as the base, it's a best shot. Sorry for noise otherwise.
All versions of
core2were yanked and this causes downstream built fallouts.It's fine to archive a crate and step back from it. Yet, yanking all possible versions of a crate causes all downstream crates to fail to build in a long chain. (See:
bitstream-io/rav1e/image). Instead, a RUSTSEC unmaintained advisory is the preferred way to signal that action from all downstream crates is required without causing resolution failures directly. Unless there's something critically wrong, consider unyanking the crates.See: image-rs/image#2909
For filing an unmaintained advisory: https://github.com/rustsec/advisory-db/blob/main/HOWTO_UNMAINTAINED.md (simply creating an issue and have someone come with the PR is fine, too).
Edit: I'm not sure I'm reaching the right people here. But since the repository pointed to by the Cargo.toml no longer allows filing issues and the contributor list here includes the author, and Github shows this as the base, it's a best shot. Sorry for noise otherwise.