[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#119517: #119517 (wrt: Konq and SSL)

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Stone [mailto:daniel@sfarc.net] 

> The doubling of archive thing size was total BS.

Agreed.  I wasn't really paying attention to the layout of the KDE
binaries and libraries when I wrote that.  Heck, I don't even use KDE,
it was just an example pulled out of a hat.  Disregard the archive
doubling thing, then.  The rest still stands.

> Yes, but you are providing a binary. Konq isn't called ssl-browser, or
> konqueror-with-ssl-support, or whatever. When you provide a binary,
> must explicitly declare all the Depends needed to make it run.

I think this has been the argument all along, actually.  People are
trying to figure out why "a tiny binary in a large package filled with
binaries" is more important than "a tiny function in a single binary".

> I'm with Manoj's suggestion. I think yours is a quick hack that
> shouldn't make it into Debian for fear of setting an ugly precedent.

FWIW, you're probably right.  Then again, I'm not the maintainer, and I
don't want to be, so my opinion is just that -- opinion.  I don't envy
Brian in the slightest.  pcmcia-cs is a pain. :)

... Adam

Reply to: