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

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

Joerg Jaspert <joerg@debian.org> writes:

> Otavio Salvador <otavio@debian.org> writes:
>> 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.
> Policy is not everything that counts. Just because policy doesnt say
> something it means it is good to do it.

Of course but I think if the developper did something is because he
think this is better and this should be respected (if doesn't broke
the policy)

> Its a useless split, not needed and there is no benefit for the users.
> One can say its against users - everyone that wants .el files needs to
> install another package. :)
>> 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.
> "It can work without" is not enough for a split. One reason, but not
> everything. If we would split everything that "works without the rest
> in the package" we would end up with thousands of useless small
> packages. We already have enough packages in the list, we dont need
> things there we can avoid without problems.

More or less. Doesn't make sense include a depends of Emacs in
search-citeseer and the -el part depends of this. The better option is
split in two package each with your depends and needs.

The sugestion of James is not right to include emacs like a suggets is
not good since the package need emacsen to work.

        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: