Subject: RE: difficulty from renaming packages, and how to deal
To: Greg Troxel <email@example.com>
From: De Zeurkous <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 11/07/2007 15:15:49
On Wed, November 7, 2007 15:10, Greg Troxel wrote:
> How do people feel about the following change? The idea is to enable
> programs (and humans) dealing with upgrades to know what to do about a
> "Removed" package. The following two removals have obvious successor
> packages that one should switch to on upgrading. My thought is that "
> successor $PKGPATH" is optional, and included when it's reasonable for
> an automated update to replace the removed package with the named
If we're going to parse such data, I'd rather have the human-readable
CHANGES file generated automagically from one with a more strict syntax.