On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Peter Stuge <pe...@stuge.se> wrote: > You don't seem to recognize the quite significant psychological > impact of you having already made the decision, compared to, say, > having an actually inclusive package removal process.
I was going to post something along these lines, but I'm struggling to come up with something that would actually be a better system in practice. The notice in the mask appears the next time you run emerge, which is about as good as it gets in terms of making users aware. Markos is open to including a URL in this annoucement which offers advice to those affected. That might take some of the edge off. I'm not sure I see a lot of alternatives. We could announce them on -dev, but I don't know that it would cause many to show up. It might be worth doing if it saves the treecleaners churn in the event that somebody does step up (no need to touch portage only to have somebody else revert the changes). If somebody has ideas on better ways to communicate pending removals speak up, but do keep in mind that it won't do any good if nobody notices them until the mask comes. Rich
