Re: why ddd-?motif are gone from archive?
On Fri, Mar 06, 1998 at 03:31:43PM +0000, Luis Francisco Gonzalez wrote:
> Enrique Zanardi wrote
> > On Thu, Mar 05, 1998 at 08:42:00PM +0100, Marco Budde wrote:
> > > Am 05.03.98 schrieb sr1 # os.inf.tu-dresden.de ...
> > > SR> shared library. IMHO its up to the package maintainer whether he
> > > SR> creates the -dmotif package.
> > >
> > > No!!! If the maintainer doesn#t own a Motif license he can#t maintain the
> > > package.
> >
> > How odd! I thought that providing a (working) lesstif version of a
> > package was better for our users than not providing any version at all.
[...]
> I think the point is more that the maintainer should preferably be
> somebody that can actually create the *-dmotif packages.
_preferably_ is a better word. "it's up to the package maintainer" may
be perceived as not enough a commitment. "he can't maintain the
package" is IMO the wrong approach.
> This is catering for users which
> have the libraries, not supporting or otherwise encouraging the use of
> commercial libraries. While I agree it is better to have a lesstif dependent
> package than none at all, we should aim at having motif packages maintained
> by people who actually have the commercial libraries and can generate the
> *-dmotif and possibly *-smotif versions.
Well, if we provide a working hiqh-quality lesstif-using package, I think
the ?motif version are low-importance items for our already big wishlist.
Wearing my xmgr (a working high-quality lesstif-using package, by its
upstream authors' decision) maintainer hat, I told you I don't have any
objections against NMUs of -smotif and -dmotif versions, but I won't make
MUs of those packages until a kind soul donates me a fully-licensed
development version of Motif 2.1. :-)
--
Enrique Zanardi ezanardi@ull.es
Dpto. Fisica Fundamental y Experimental Univ. de La Laguna
--
E-mail the word "unsubscribe" to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST. Trouble? E-mail to listmaster@debian.org .
Reply to: