Re: _i386 changes file for binary-all package?

To: debian-mentors@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: _i386 changes file for binary-all package?
From: Tollef Fog Heen <tollef@add.no>
Date: 21 Dec 2000 06:38:55 +0100
Message-id: <[🔎] 878zpafi4w.fsf@manon.intern.opera.no>
In-reply-to: Matt Zimmerman's message of "Wed, 20 Dec 2000 23:13:12 -0500"
References: <[🔎] 8766kelvnx.fsf@manon.intern.opera.no> <[🔎] 20001220231311.A3071@alcor.net>

* Matt Zimmerman 

| On Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 08:50:10PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
| 
| > I am building fortunes-bofh-excuses - just a couple of data files for
| > fortune.
| 
| Is there any reason why they shouldn't be included in fortune proper?

That they are distributed separately and that I am planning on
packaging more of them?  fortunes-kernel, fortunes-opensource,
fortunes-jargon, maybe fortunes-calvin, fortunes-matrix etc?

And that some of them get big - fortunes-jargon is about 1.2MB
unpacked.

-- 

Tollef Fog Heen
Unix _IS_ user friendly... It's just selective about who its friends are.

Reply to:

References:
- _i386 changes file for binary-all package?
  - From: Tollef Fog Heen <tollef@add.no>
- Re: _i386 changes file for binary-all package?
  - From: Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org>

Prev by Date: Re: _i386 changes file for binary-all package?
Next by Date: How to deal with lintian "E: missing shlibs information"
Previous by thread: Re: _i386 changes file for binary-all package?
Next by thread: How to deal with lintian "E: missing shlibs information"
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread