Re: question about meme
Le Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:42:26PM +0100, Andreas Tille a écrit :
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 07:24:59PM +0100, Steffen Möller wrote:
> > glam2 has found its way to meme only at some later point as it seems. What counts are the source tarballs. When GLAM2 is now
> > shipping with it, then I suggest to have a source package called "meme" and several binary packages from it ... if this makes
> > sense since there are different user groups. A binary meme package could (if feasible) then depend on / recommend glam2.
> >
> > The glam2 package of meme would be of a version higher than that of the standalone glam2, so I hope. We then just ask for a
> > removal of Glam2 from the archive.
>
> It was me who introduced this split. I considered it useful because we
> just have a glam2 package and so it made obviosely sense to have this
> code separately. Whether it should remain that way (or you merge back
> again) or you even consider to split more parts of the suite separately
> is your decision. We have a do-o-cracy and the doer decides what gets
> done. I willnot stubbornly insist on my way of packaging of there are
> reasons do it in another way.
Hello everybody,
there is also the problem that a non-free source package is not allowed to
produce binary packages for the main archive… Perhaps the best solution for the
moment is to keep the glam2 source and binary packages and have the meme binary
package ship the glam2 programs and conflict against the glam2 package ?
Have a nice day,
--
Charles Plessy
Debian Med packaging team,
http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
Reply to: