Re: Packaging _still_ wasteful for many large packages
In article <20040216234331.GD1586@tintin> you write:
>On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 10:57:34PM +0000, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> So why is Eagle a large i386-only package with i386 binaries in
>> /usr/share? This is ridiculous - surely that's a bug in and of itself!
>I have absolutely no idea; that's only the first single-arch package I
>could spot in your list.
>There are other ones, if you want to give them a look: clue, cmix,
>digikam, etherboot, fenris, freefem3d, gibraltar-bootcd, gnat-gdb,
>mindi, nasm, powermanga, squid, wine-doc, xffm4, ebook-dev-kde20,
>ipadic, parmedis, pdp11-unix-v6 and pdp11-unix-v7.
Thanks. I'm going to look at each of the single packages by hand
before posting bugs. It looks like some people are not checking their
packages against lintian/linda before upload here.
>(This list was made by hand by looking for source package names that
>appeared only ones. There certainly are some false-positives, ans some
>of those package probably deserve bug reports...)
Yes, it looks like.
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. firstname.lastname@example.org
Mature Sporty Personal
More Innovation More Adult
A Man in Dandism
Powered Midship Specialty