| 1 |
>>>>> On Mon, 07 Sep 2020, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> + <li> |
| 4 |
> + If the virtual is being removed along with its second to last |
| 5 |
> + provider, include the virtual in the last-rites mail. However, please |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Maybe write "any of its providers" instead of "its second to last |
| 8 |
provider"? It is simpler and still has the same meaning. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> + do not include it in the <c>package.mask</c> entry as users do not need |
| 11 |
> + to be forced to proactively unmerge it. Instead, add it |
| 12 |
> + to <c>package.deprecated</c> to warn developers not to depend on it. |
| 13 |
> + Wait the time appropriate for the last rites. |
| 14 |
> + </li> |
Archives