On 07.10.2015 23:02, Sébastien Villemot wrote: > Le mercredi 07 octobre 2015 à 22:49 +0200, Oliver Heimlich a écrit : >> On 07.10.2015 22:43, Sébastien Villemot wrote: > >>> - is the separation in two packages really necessary? My >>> understanding >>> is that separating arch-indep files is only warranted for big >>> packages, >>> because it saves space on the Debian ftp servers. In the present >>> case, >>> given that the package is small, I don't think that the overhead >>> created by a separate -common package is warranted. I think it just >>> adds complexity for no benefit. Or am I missing something? >> >> It's absolutely fine to have a single package and this is also easier >> because you do not have the dependency trouble between the two (one >> would never use one without the other). >> >> The only benefit would be to save some bytes, because the arch-dep >> part >> would be small. AFAIK, there is no other reason to separate the two. > > Since you are the maintainer, and since the Debian policy does not make > an imperative prescription in this area, you are free to decide whether > to have two packages or one. > > But if I were you, I would go for just one package in the present case. Simplicity rules. I have made it a single package. Local rebuilding and testing was successful. I have also added the missing copyright stanza for debian/*. The changes have been pushed to the git repo.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature