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

Re: Splitting isdnutils & co. into non-X and X parts


On Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 07:42:29PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2000 at 09:17:35PM +0200, Rene Mayrhofer wrote:
> > What about dividing packages like isdnutils into parts with non-X and X tools ?
> This is explicitly in violation of policy 5.8:

(some policy lines deleted)

> If you don't like this policy, don't blame me.  I didn't write it and when
> I proposed a revision that would have liberalized the situation, I was shot
> down.

There is some misunderstanding here: We don't want to make
to versions of the same program (w/ and w/o X support).  We
want that programs, that already exist in a large package
(isdnutils) go into different packages (w/ and w/o
dependeny on X and hopefully more).  So there's no
violation of the policy in that proposal.

Nevertheless, I think that it's no so nice, that a lot of
typical non-X packages or packages that I like to have on
non-X machines (e.g. aalib1, bb, cdrdao, emacs20, gnokii,
mtools, tetex-bin, ...) depend on the relatively large
xlib6g package.  Some of these packages could be split into
packages w/ X and w/ non-X programs (cdrdao, gnokii,
mtools), some not (aalib1, bb, emacs20).  I work
console-only 99% of the time and have one machine, where
xlib6g/xfree86-common (size 4492K) is only installed
because of mtools (size 311K).

W. Borgert <debacle@debian.org>

W. Borgert <debacle@debian.org>

Reply to: