On Tue, Feb 26, 2002 at 03:37:28AM -0700, Adam Conrad wrote: > From: Daniel Stone [mailto:daniel@sfarc.net] > > 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, > you > > 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". Because, by providing a binary, you are implicitly advertising that it works. If it doesn't work, remove it from the package. As I said, if Konq was called ssl-browser, or konq-that-works-with-ssl, that'd be a different matter, but it isn't. This binary doesn't even load. > > 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. :) Yea, the only laptop I have is a 486 SX/33, so I've never even been able to experience the pain, but I can imagine it. -- Daniel Stone <daniel@sfarc.net> <xidex> its either skinny 10year old in skimpy dresses jumping up and down in some so called music video, or movies where its always "big strong man save world ugh ugh ugh, jane come, save world ugh ugh"
Attachment:
pgpfFoI8vkWO1.pgp
Description: PGP signature