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

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

Peter S Galbraith <p.galbraith@globetrotter.net> writes:

> Otavio Salvador <otavio@debian.org> wrote:
>> [ I'm including the debian-devel list in CC since I appreciate the
>> opinion of others developpers ]
>> 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.
>> Yes, the packages is small *but* IMHO this should be splited in two
>> since the -el package can but not used. Other issue is the last
>> depends of emacsen and someone can doesn't like have an emacsen
>> installed in machine.
>> -rw-r--r--    1 otavio   otavio       4.1K Oct  4 16:58 search-citeseer-el_0.1-1_all.deb
> Are you byte-compiling this elisp?
> AFAIK, you need to depend on emacs itself (and not emacs-common) if you
> byte-compile it.  I _think_ stuff can break if you don't, but I'm vague
> on why.  Search the debian-emacsen archives.  I split off a package
> because of that issue a while back, but the seperate -el package is 62KB.

Yes. I'm byte-compiling this.

> If the above is correct, then you may bundle your .el file with the main
> package without depending on Emacs providing that you don't bye-compile
> it.  If it's 4K, it's presumably a very small elisp file anyway.

Yes, is small but I've tried to do the most right package project
(but a bad decision cause the size of files).

        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: