Re: are lsm files worth putting in binary package?
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I think that though they do not *need* to be included (that
> is, including them is not a requirement), they do contain things
> which maybe important, son including them is not necesarilly a bug,
> or at least not en masse.
Ok. I don't think this is very importany anyway..
> I'd leave it to the maintainers to decide whether it is useful
> to include them. They are rather small, and they do sometimes contain
> details and meta-data about the package which are useful.
However, the point of my original posting about this is that I can't find
any information in lsm files that isn't duplicates in the the Packages file
and the copyright files. Do you have any examples?
see shy jo
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .