On Mon, 2020-09-07 at 09:46 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 07 Sep 2020, Michał Górny wrote: > > + <li> > > + If the virtual is being removed along with its second to last > > + provider, include the virtual in the last-rites mail. However, please > > Maybe write "any of its providers" instead of "its second to last > provider"? It is simpler and still has the same meaning.
Done. > > > + do not include it in the <c>package.mask</c> entry as users do not need > > + to be forced to proactively unmerge it. Instead, add it > > + to <c>package.deprecated</c> to warn developers not to depend on it. > > + Wait the time appropriate for the last rites. > > + </li> -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
