Re: dpkg development and gettext
On Sun, Feb 01, 1998 at 03:18:45PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> Then the logical extension is that you go through the dist and remove all
> the other packages that are also in this form. Why are we making it
> more difficult for people to author debian programs?
No, because they _can_ be built from source using only programs in main. The
handful of packages that require gettext do need to be removed from main
IMO. Of course, that would result in a useless system, so what we really
need to do is to move gettext into main.
> BTW, the proper term for your '_source_' above is what GNU likes to call
> maintainer source (ie make maintainer-clean). It is not the same as
> distribution source (make dist-clean) which is supposed to include things
> that need not be rebuilt by end user (such as libtool, autoconf, gettext,
> yacc output, automake, etc).
Have you missed the whole point of free software? It's supposed to be
maintainable by anyone. All the tools needed to compile from source need to
> What you are saying is that it is not acceptable for a package to be in
> main that used packages other than those are in main to create the
> .tar.gz which I don't think is a usefull distinction.
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. It's also exactly what the DFSG says.
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .