Re: are lsm files worth putting in binary package?

To: Jim Pick <jim@jimpick.com>
Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: are lsm files worth putting in binary package?
From: Joey Hess <joey@kite.ml.org>
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 12:44:54 -0400
Message-id: <[🔎] 19971004124454.20843@kite>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 199710041526.IAA08400@fleming.jimpick.com>; from Jim Pick on Sat, Oct 04, 1997 at 08:26:04AM -0700
References: <[🔎] 19971004013031.41106@kite> <[🔎] 199710041526.IAA08400@fleming.jimpick.com>

Jim Pick wrote:
> I don't think they need to be included.  

I'm just wondering if it would be overdoing things for me to file bugs on
the 38 packages that currently contain lsm files.
 
> Eventually, I wouldn't mind putting together a lsm package that
> contained the raw data - and maybe another package that contained some
> tools for manipulating it + link it into dwww (the next version).  So 
> there isn't a lot of reason to have the LSM files in each package.

I think that'd be a useful thing to have.

-- 
see shy jo


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: are lsm files worth putting in binary package?
  - From: Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@datasync.com>

References:
- are lsm files worth putting in binary package?
  - From: Joey Hess <joey@kite.ml.org>
- Re: are lsm files worth putting in binary package?
  - From: Jim Pick <jim@jimpick.com>

Prev by Date: Re: Preliminary enlightenment package
Next by Date: Re: MaintainerDatabase Copyright
Previous by thread: Re: are lsm files worth putting in binary package?
Next by thread: Re: are lsm files worth putting in binary package?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread