Re: are lsm files worth putting in binary package?
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
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .