[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: ucspi-tcp-src (package to build ucspi-tcp from source)

> > I mirror the binary distribution, and only download source when I really
> > need it.  I imagine I'm not alone (European phone charges being what
> > they are).
> Perhaps we need a special directory for this.
> What about this?:
> hamm/main/source
> hamm/main/binary-i386
> hamm/main/binary-all
> hamm/main/binary-m68k
> hamm/main/source-only <---

All source-only packages are in non-free, as a result of being source-only, so 
that would have to be:


Even if we did this, we would have to add special cases to all the stuff that 
deals with these packages, so they got treated as though they were binary 
packages when they are not (i.e. CD builder scripts, web site CGI's etc.)

Given that these are non-free, I think it would be foolish to require these 
changes, so instead why not waste a total of about a megabyte on the mirrors 
by having a few *-src.deb packages.

It's not as though we are even making the official CD images any bigger by 
doing this (they are all non-free remember).

To illustrate my point, try going to http://www.debian.org/packages.html, and 
searching for pine and qmail.  For pine, the only reference you get is one 
that should not be there (Bug #11576).

Once that bug is resolved, it will seem that Debian does not have pine.  Is 
there any point in packaging pine, if the vast majority of users will be left 
with the impression that there is no pine package for Debian ?

Should we modify the search engine, just to accommodate pine (a non-free 
package), or should we make the pine package behave in a way that does not 
require any such a modification ?

Cheers, Phil.

E-mail the word "unsubscribe" to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST. Trouble? E-mail to listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: