On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 04:26:34PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> was heard to say: > Nicolas Boullis <nboullis@debian.org> writes: > > > On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 12:13:48PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > >> Hello Debian developers, > >> > >> When doing research about circular-deps, I looked at a lot of packages > >> that are split between a binary package and a data package. This is a > >> good thing since this reduce the total siez of the archive, however > >> there are simple rules that should be followed: > >> > >> 3) Keep the files that 'signal' executables in the same package than the > >> executable (e.g. menu file, program manpage). > > > > Why? I agree that it menu files and manpages are generally not that > > large, but what would it break to have them in pkg-data? > > (I would consider it strange to have such files out of the main pkg > > package, but it looks policy-compliant as far as I can see...) > > > > > > Nicolas > > foo depends on foo-data. But foo-data does NOT depend on foo. > > So an "apt-get install foo-data", while being useless, is consistent > for dpkg. After that you would end up with a menu entry for foo but no > foo binary. Shouldn't menu refuse to create menu entries for "foo" if the foo package is not installed? At least, I thought that's what ?package(foo): ... meant. Daniel
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature