Re: are lsm files worth putting in binary package?
>>"Joey" == Joey Hess <email@example.com> writes:
Joey> Jim Pick wrote:
>> I don't think they need to be included.
Joey> I'm just wondering if it would be overdoing things for me to
Joey> file bugs on the 38 packages that currently contain lsm files.
I think that though they do not *need* to be included (that
is, including them is not a requirement), they do contain things
which maybe important, son including them is not necesarilly a bug,
or at least not en masse.
I'd leave it to the maintainers to decide whether it is useful
to include them. They are rather small, and they do sometimes contain
details and meta-data about the package which are useful.
... The subtlety of these methods implies an important source of
unreliability; unreliable error recovery. Thus it is important that
system testing pay meticulous attention to fault simulation to
uncover weaknesses in the recovery. Data taken on electronic
switching systems show that failure to recover from simplex faults is
usually a significant source of total outage time.... Edwin
A. Irland, "Assuring Quality and Reliability of Complex Electronic
Systems: Hardware and Software," Proceedings of the IEEE, January
Manoj Srivastava <url:mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
Mobile, Alabama USA <url:http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .