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
requeriments.
>> 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: