Bug#963112: Request for advice on katex rejected by ftp masters

[Pirate Praveen <praveen@onenetbeyond.org>]

Package: tech-ctte

Hi,

The general case was discussed earlier and a recommendation was given at 
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=934948#54

I'd like a confirmation from you if katex was following your recommendations or not. I think katex should be a separate binary package because it is shipping a user facing executable. But ftp masters don't agree with my interpretation.

Their rejection mail and explanation is given below.

Thanks
Praveen


-------- Original Message --------
From: Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com>
Sent: 2020, ജൂൺ 19 3:14:43 AM IST
To: Pirate Praveen <praveen@onenetbeyond.org>
Cc: pkg-javascript-devel@alioth-lists.debian.net, ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org, Debian Javascript Maintainers <pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org>
Subject: Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] node-katex_0.10.2+dfsg-2_amd64.changes REJECTED

On Thursday, June 18, 2020 4:57:52 PM EDT Pirate Praveen wrote:
> On 2020, ജൂൺ 19 1:40:09 AM IST, Bastian Blank <ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org> wrote:
> >The introduces an unnecessary split into katex and libjs-katex.
> 
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=934948#54
> 
> * User-facing executable programs associated with a library should usually
> be packaged in a non-library binary package whose name reflects the program
> (for example tappy, flatpak, parted) or collection of related programs (for
> example kmod, libsecret-tools, libglib2.0-bin), rather than being bundled
> in the same binary package as the runtime library.
> 
> Do you disagree with recommendation of ctte or you don't think it does not
> apply here?

You did read the rest of that, right?

Scott K
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.