Re: Packaging _still_ wasteful for many large packages
In article <[🔎] email@example.com> you write:
>On Mon, 2004-02-16 at 03:13, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> There are a _lot_ more package files listed this
>> time (4305 vs 109), which means it probably covers ~400 packages in
>> total this time. That's why I want to check again on -devel before
>> posting bugs. New list at
>Unless anyone has a reason to suspect that a re-packaging will make it
>into woody updates, I suggest that you only draw results from sarge and
>sid. For instance, #232885 (celestia 1.2.2) is only in woody; the 1.3.0
>version in sarge/sid already has celestia-common. Other large offenders
>in waste2.txt (e.g., libxalan1.2-dev) are also woody-only.
Yes, good point. I'll make sure to check if the packages I'm looking
at are in woody before posting bugs.
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. firstname.lastname@example.org
Welcome my son, welcome to the machine.