Re: Technical Committee: decision on #119517?

To: Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au>
Cc: debian-ctte@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Technical Committee: decision on #119517?
From: Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 01:34:07 +0100
Message-id: <15568.35199.258040.42962@davenant.relativity.greenend.org.uk>
In-reply-to: <20020429074810.GA26456@azure.humbug.org.au>
References: <20020419062032.GD6319@deadbeast.net> <87g01pn3tp.fsf@glaurung.green-gryphon.com> <15561.59425.291312.204292@davenant.relativity.greenend.org.uk> <871yd14wrl.fsf@glaurung.green-gryphon.com> <15562.31497.626710.119542@davenant.relativity.greenend.org.uk> <87znzpjfaf.fsf@glaurung.green-gryphon.com> <20020428062100.GA23777@azure.humbug.org.au> <874rhvk4qm.fsf@glaurung.green-gryphon.com> <20020429074810.GA26456@azure.humbug.org.au>

Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Technical Committee: decision on #119517?"):
> I think everyone agrees that it's a Bad Thing to have packages like this,
> the question is really whether it's completely unacceptable to ever do it,
> or if having packages with a single fairly trivial binary and different
> depends: is enough to justify it.

Indeed.  I think that this kind of tradeoff between different kinds of
costs is best left to the package maintainer.

Ian.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Technical Committee: decision on #119517?
  - From: Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk>
- Re: Technical Committee: decision on #119517?
  - From: Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org>

Prev by Date: Re: Technical Committee: decision on #119517?
Next by Date: Re: Technical Committee: decision on #119517?
Previous by thread: [no subject]
Next by thread: Re: Technical Committee: decision on #119517?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread