Wolf Wiegand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote: >> For some time now, I have been thinking about the problem of packages >> which are removed from the archive at some point, without an (enforced) >> transition to a new package name. Users of such packages keep them >> around, usually never noticing the fact that no security (or other) >> support is available anymore. > Maybe it should be mandatory to always have a transition package for > packages which are being removed from the archives? For example, when > package X_0.1 is to be removed from the archive, there has to be a > transition to a package X-obsoleted_0.1 (which is in fact the same as > X_0.1).
That would force us to keep the packages in the next release. Marc -- BOFH #81: Please me, I have to circuit an AC line through my head to get this database working.
pgpKvWOQkoYgS.pgp
Description: PGP signature
