[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: RFS: audacious -- Small and fast audio player which supports lots of formats

Adam Cécile (Le_Vert) wrote:
>> audacious-locales is only interesting, if you don't want the additional
>> locales installed, but it is unpacked only 1.5mb, not worthwile, include
>> that into audacious. splitted out locales is only worthwile for some
>> real large programs like openoffice.org, mozilla-* etc.
> It would save 1500+440 x supported_archs in the archive, I don't think it's so 
> useless... But as you want (I still don't understand why separate packages 
> could be a problem ;)).

What I've written above is from the user point of view.

>From the archive point of view, space isn't a problem, but useless
binary packages are (britney has to consider every binary package
independently, which is stressing memory consumption etc.).

>> as these pull-in jack and arts, it makes sense to keep these plugins as
>> a seperate package (as you mentioned and I agreed before). when you drop
>> the original audacious-plugins, you can just rename
>> audacious-plugins-extra into audacious-plugins.
> Well... This make sense but what's about uo-coming 1.2.0 release ? Upstream 
> will release it as two separate sources tarball, one for the core software 
> and lib, another one for all plugins.

If the plugins and the core tarball are always released together, you
can include those two tarballs into one debian source package (the two
tarballs and unpack it while build:), which will not change the debian
binary packages/package relations.

If not, you have to go through NEW anyway, so you don't gain anything
with it doing it now already, except that you have suboptimal packages now.

Address:        Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist
Email:          daniel.baumann@panthera-systems.net
Internet:       http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann/

Reply to: