Bernd Ernesti <netbsd@lists.veego.de> writes:

> On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 10:10:17AM -0500, 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.
>
> It would be good to have something, but thats not the point of my
> reply here. You made a 'bad' choice for this example where I have
> to made a comment.
>
> [..]
>> -	Removed archivers/rar-bin [jlam 2007-08-22]
>> +	Removed archivers/rar-bin successor archivers/rar [jlam 2007-08-22]
>
> rar-bin is currently very broken on NetBSD, too that extend that it doesn't
> even install at all.
>
> The old 'BSD' version should be updated to the linux version, so other
> packages which depends on it work again.

I have no clue about rar.  I just went back through the CHANGES file for
Removed to find examples.

> Bernd
>
> P.S. Huberts reply seems to fit better as a solution for the orginal topic.

So are you suggesting that the "Removed" entry for gimp24 should say

  Renamed graphics/gimp24 to graphics/gimp

even though it was removed, and graphics/gimp not changed during the
removal?