On Sat, 15 May, 1999, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > Soemone recenly announced an ITP ogonkify. Yes, this already exists, but is > part of a2ps. Both the upstream authors of a2ps and of ogonkify are happy > with that situation and don't feel strongly in favour of a distinct ogonkify > package. > > So it was suggest to create an empty ogonkify package (which would depend on > a2ps) to give ogonkify more visibility. > > Is this considered to be a good or a bad idea ? A bad idea. If they are both part of the same source package, just make it multi-binary. If a2ps depends on ogonkify, make it depend on ogonkify. If the two can not be split, then leave it don't bother. But empty packages, tend only to occur when their are problems in the packaging system, do not create any if at all avoidable. -- I consume, therefore I am
Attachment:
pgpjMlc2Wwyb0.pgp
Description: PGP signature