Re: Splitting isdnutils & co. into non-X and X parts
Hallo,
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).
Cheers,
--
W. Borgert <debacle@debian.org>
--
W. Borgert <debacle@debian.org>
Reply to: