Dnia 2013-11-11, o godz. 13:38:56 Sergey Popov napisał(a): > 11.11.2013 13:32, Manuel Rüger wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I recently noticed it twice, that it seems to be common practice to > > remove a package without using the methods described in [1], but just > > dropping it from cvs. > > > > From my observations packages removed without last-rites could be > > characterized by this: > > > > - it was a dependency of another package > > - this package dropped / incorporated the dependency > > - no other packages depend on it > > - there are possible forks or updates, but maintainer doesn't care^W^W > > has no interest > > +1, this should be documented IMO. I last-rite > games-strategy/seven-kingdoms-data recently without sending notice, > cause last versions of games-strategy/seven-kingdoms includes all of > it's data. How hard would it be to send proper last rites for that package and add it to package.mask explaining the move? Silent removals do us no good. The only valid reason to remove a package without lastriting it is when it is package-moved with proper 'updates' entry. However, that won't work for package merges, so the usual lastriting procedure applies. Overlays are just one of the potential issues. Another issue is users who ended up with that package in @world. If it were masked, they would know why they need to remove it. Now, they will just get awful blockers. -- Best regards, Michał Górny