Bug#821260: RFS: python-adventure/1.4-1 [ITP]
Markus Koschany <apo@debian.org> writes:
> The rationale for providing multiple binary packages is that users
> should be able to install a subset of an application and save some
> disk space.
Another important rationale for splitting common files to a separate
binary package, is to avoid duplication and potential divergence.
> In this case they always have to install both packages because
> otherwise the game would be broken. It would be a different case if
> they already had a choice and could choose between different variants.
My intention was to enable existing and future implementations to have
the canonical data file available, without needing to deal with the
Python application.
> I wouldn't decline to upload but you should take this wall of text
> into consideration. In my opinion you can always split the package
> later when a potential port might require it.
Fair enough. I will merge the “common” files into the
‘colossal-cave-adventure’ binary package.
> Indeed they redirect all requests now. I don't know if that comes with
> a performance penalty though. I wonder why we need two fields,
> Vcs-Browser and Vcs-Git, if they are identical...
Because the meanings are different (one is for VCS operations on the
repo, one is for web-browser access to browse the repo). And commonly
they are not the same URL.
--
\ “I hate it when my foot falls asleep during the day, because |
`\ that means it's gonna be up all night.” —Steven Wright |
_o__) |
Ben Finney
Reply to: