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.

Bernd

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