On 02:48 Tue 09 Jun , Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > >> It is wrong IMO to package the three modules together in a single > >> binary package, just because that's what upstream did. > > > >What do you suggest then if upstream don't want to separate these > >modules ? > > Compose a single source package that produce 3 binary packages. As was > my understanding was the case already. Your question now confuses me. Oh sorry, it was my fault. Agreed that it's wrong to package the three modules together in a single binary package. > >> The packages being small should not be a problem. If only there is a > >> need for the packages, then go for it. > > > >Agreed. My policy is to try to be minimalist as much as possible and to > >have installed only what is needed.. (maybe because I work on embedded > >systems ;) ) > > ...but a package being _relevant_ to package is important, on the other > hand: > > The goal of Debian is not to serve our upstreams (e.g. distribute > anything that gets released), but to serve our users (i.e. distribute > anything we consider relevant to use). Agreed. > I have *no* opinion on the usefulness of ACME modules. Neither me ;) ! Greetings, -- ,''`. Xavier Oswald <xoswald@debian.org> : :' : ** Research Engineer `. `' ** GNU/LINUX Debian Developer (http://debian.org) `- ** Isaac Project Developer (http://isaacproject.u-strasbg.fr/)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature