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

> On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 01:01:42PM -0500, Greg Troxel wrote:
>> Bernd Ernesti <netbsd@lists.veego.de> writes:
>> > 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?
>
> No, not in this case. gimp24 was in my eyes a very very very very wrong
> package name, which caused me more then once to install a -devel version
> instead of the release one which I wanted.

If it were gimp-devel instead we would have the exact same naming issue.

> In this case gimp was updated to 2.4 and gimp24 (which was 2.3.x and not
> 2.4) was removed afterwards.
>
> It should be used when we rename a package, like when the 2 was removed
> at the end of a lot of packages a few weeks ago.

Sure, and there are a bunch of Renamed entries, and I wasn't (now)
proposing to change them.

But the question on the table is: for "Removed" packages that have a
logical successor, should that be noted on the Removed line?
Do you object to that?