[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: An Empty `real' virtual package ?



On Sat, May 15, 1999 at 07:14:04PM -0400, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>   Edward>  If they are both part of the same source package, just make it
>   Edward> multi-binary. If a2ps depends on ogonkify, make it depend on
>   Edward> ogonkify.
> 
> Upstream doesn't think splitting is such good idea. 

Upstream doesn't think splitting a lib into libfoo and libfoo-dev is a
bright idea either but we do it.

It's your package and your call.  If you think they should be split in
the binary case, go for it.  That's why we have relationsips in our
packages---and probably why they don't want to split the package
upstream.

Naturally it's your package, your call.

--
Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org>            Debian GNU/Linux developer
PGP: E8D68481E3A8BB77 8EE22996C9445FBE            The Source Comes First!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
<stu> apt: !bugs
<apt> !bugs are stupid
<dpkg> apt: are stupid?  what's that?
<apt> dpkg: i don't know
<dpkg> apt: Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder...
<apt> i already had it that way, dpkg.

Attachment: pgpwzPCsJjnwg.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: