Re: are lsm files worth putting in binary package?

[Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@datasync.com>]

Hi,
>>"Joey" == Joey Hess <joey@kite.ml.org> writes:

Joey> However, the point of my original posting about this is that I
Joey> can't find any information in lsm files that isn't duplicates in
Joey> the the Packages file and the copyright files. Do you have any
Joey> examples?

	Not off hand, no (my living room is fast piling up with boxes
 full of stuff for the movers, I'm just snatching this in rest
 intervals). 

	In the particular case you refer to, it may well be redundant,
 and you should talk to the maintainer. However, I can see a
 maintainer including the lsm, and not duplicating the information
 elsewhere, which I think is quite permissible (things like previous
 history of the package, or its antecedents).

	This is a judgement call, and should be made on a case by case
 basis.

	manoj
-- 
 "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
 safety deserve neither liberty not safety." Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Manoj Srivastava               <url:mailto:srivasta@acm.org>
Mobile, Alabama USA            <url:http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>


--
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 .