Re: Packaging _still_ wasteful for many large packages
In article <20040216210207.GC1586@tintin> you write:
>On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 09:33:23AM +0000, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> Yes, good point. I'll make sure to check if the packages I'm looking
>> at are in woody before posting bugs.
>I think that you should also check that they are not single-arch (such
>as eagle), as splitting such packages would only bloat the Packages file
>with no gain for the mirrors.
So why is Eagle a large i386-only package with i386 binaries in
/usr/share? This is ridiculous - surely that's a bug in and of itself!
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. firstname.lastname@example.org
"...In the UNIX world, people tend to interpret `non-technical user'
as meaning someone who's only ever written one device driver." -- Daniel Pead