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

Re: search-citeseer_0.1-1_i386.changes REJECTED

Steve Greenland <steveg@moregruel.net> writes:

> On 16-Oct-03, 10:50 (CDT), Otavio Salvador <otavio@debian.org> wrote: 
>> [ I'm including the debian-devel list in CC since I appreciate the
>> opinion of others developpers ]
> Okay, since you ask:

Perfect :-)

>> James Troup <ftpmaster@debian.org> writes:
>> > This package is dubiously small enough as it is without being split
>> > into two.  There's no need to separate the 2k .el file into a separate
>> > package.  If depending on emacs bothers you, make it a suggests.
> James is correct. Just put it all in one package. No one is obliged to
> use the .el files. 

And no one is obliged to do all like James think. The package follow
the policy and doesn't have any point in policy talking about size

>> Other issue is the last depends of emacsen and someone can doesn't
>> like have an emacsen installed in machine.
> What part of "If depending on emacs bothers you, make it a suggests." did
> you not understand?

Yes, I understand but is not right to me. Is really more logical split
it in two packages. If enduser need the emacs interface, only install
the -el.

>> If we doesn't want small packages in Debian, please include this in
>> Debian Policy and then I'll agree without asking but this is not the
>> case.
> Not every good practice is in Policy. You're supposed to be able to
> apply a little common sense as well. The objection is not to a small
> package but pointless splitting of packages.

Yes but to my sense is really better to enduser have this packages
splited since the search-citeseer can work (without problems) without
the -el part and I want provide this option for our users.

        O T A V I O    S A L V A D O R
 E-mail: otavio@debian.org      UIN: 5906116
 GNU/Linux User: 239058     GPG ID: 49A5F855
 Home Page: http://www.freedom.ind.br/otavio

Reply to: