| 1 |
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 02:42:08PM +0100, Markos Chandras wrote: |
| 2 |
> I am actually with Samuli on this. Unless there is a particular reason |
| 3 |
> for removing a package, I don't see any point of documenting this change anywhere. |
| 4 |
> What difference would it make to you if you see an entry " -foo-1.0 |
| 5 |
> old". It makes absolutely no sense. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Removing versions has implications for the depgraph which make having |
| 8 |
it documented locally fairly required. Broken dependencies is the |
| 9 |
usual example, (consider developmental profiles), but it gets nastier |
| 10 |
than that; consider a pkg depping on |
| 11 |
|| ( =foo-1.0 !block-some-other-crap ) |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Yes that's a screwed up dep, but people come up with some weird |
| 14 |
stuff- the point either way is that removal of 1.0 can have |
| 15 |
implications beyond just the perceived cleanup. Usage of --force in |
| 16 |
conjunction with it makes it worse. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Not opposed to pruning the logs (every few years we seem to go cleanup |
| 19 |
the offenders), but removals *matter* for the depgraph, thus |
| 20 |
have been required to be documented long term. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
~harrng |
Archives