Re: Intent to package pine-src
Dale Scheetz <email@example.com> wrote:
> What is your point? The .deb packaging of source doesn't deal with source
> dependencies any better than the current source package.
Sure it does. You put the dependencies on the Depends: line of the
> > > There is no current declared method for this, and that makes
> > > implimentation difficult, specially when most developers have what
> > > they need for their packages and don't typically think about the
> > > problem any further than that.
> > Please don't blame the developers for not using a system which hasn't
> > been designed or implemented. That sort of thing is unecessarily
> > dogmatic.
> I don't know where you got this from.
"... specially when most developers have what they need for their
packages and don't typically think about the problem further than that."
> I was under the impression that I was discusing what might be done
> with the current source package format. I see no blame intended
> in what I wrote. Why must all discusions of this type necessarily
> degenerate into name calling?
I think part of the problem is ambiguity. Another part is
misunderstandings. [These sometimes overlap, and sometimes don't.]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com