Re: Superseded packages

[Leo Famulari]

On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 10:44:26AM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Leo Famulari <address@hidden> skribis:
> > So the attached patch moves attic after borg and supersedes it. Is it
> > expected that we have to shuffle the package definition around like
> > this?
> 
> Yes, because ‘properties’ are evaluated eagerly.
> 
> We could change the ‘superseded’ property to always be a promise, as
> Efraim suggests; we’ll see later if that’s really necessary.
> 
> The patch LGTM.

Okay, pushed. Thanks for the details!