latest update

[seth vidal]

> 	I'm just curious, though. If the standard practice to work around such
> problems is for people to do --exclude=broken-package, why couldn't we
> not have a --exclude-broken-packages flag?

b/c you won't know it's broken until after you try to get it. Also b/c
it's not always obvious which package it is that's broken in the case. 

Often times you'll see an error about foo not being available when it is
really that bar is broken.

So do I exclude bar or foo or both - and when that causes a cascade?

-sv