My point there was that the removals should be separate in time from the
point where the package is made removable. 

Assuming we eventually want the image to be actually smaller, we'll need
to remove them in updates at some point, no? (after adequate warning,
and the remove can be confitional on the users not having installed the
package explicitly from SM, and so forth).

But I see not rush - the important thing is to make things cleanly
remov*able*, as outlined.

Right?

Daniel

Ned Konz <ned at bike-nomad.com> wrote:
> On Thursday 14 November 2002 01:38 pm, danielv at netvision.net.il wrote:
> > 3. After some testing, and sometime for the package maintainership
> > to move to SM, the removal script is made into an update.
> 
> I think we need to separate these removals somehow from the update 
> stream. Perhaps my earlier suggestion about having removal scripts 
> register themselves separately so you could choose to remove specific 
> packages.
> 
> I don't want someone who's using (say) PWS to update for bug fixes and 
> suddenly find themselves without functionality they needed...
> 
> -- 
> Ned Konz
> http://bike-nomad.com
> GPG key ID: BEEA7EFE