Haai,

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
> successor.
>
>[snip patch]

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.

Baai,

De Zeurkous
-----------

Friggin' Machines!