Re: upstream package split
On Sun, 2007-12-16 at 14:09 -0430, Jose Luis Rivas Contreras wrote:
> Well, is there any good reason why the upstream made this?
Previously it was generated from tcl files, now the docs are static
HTML files. As they were
generated from tcl files, a tcl build dependency was needed, only for
the docs. With the split
and static docs the tcl build dependency does not needed; but still
upstream split out the
> Are the manpages in the source tarball? Remember that each binary needs
> a manpage.
Yes, it does have the manpage.
> The docs zip contains which kind of documentation? PDFs? HTMLs? Is
> needed in the sqlite3 package?
Only static HTMLs. I don't say it's needed, but a new source package
would be stay in NEW
for some time, yes?
On Sun, 2007-12-16 at 19:40 +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> If there's any chance that they release a new version of only one of the
> files without the other, then I think it makes sense to split it into
> two source packages as well.
I think it's highly unlikely, but I got your point. Popcon shows 692
installations, I don't know if
it's less or much for a documentation package.
I remerge them for now.