On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 02:29:20PM -0500, Greg Troxel wrote:
> 
> 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.

Hmm, that part seems to be allready there, which I didn't know.

> 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?

I was talking about the packages which were renamed and not about successors
for a different version, which was what you were talking about.

In the case of the rar-bin package it is not really a successor, because it
is a downgrade on NetBSD right now. One which doesn't work.
Hmm, I wouldn't object to add such a successor field if others agree too.

Bernd