Re: An Empty `real' virtual package ?
Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org> writes:
> On Sat, May 15, 1999 at 07:14:04PM -0400, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> > 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.
I've never known any library developers who objected to a split of
that sort -- far from it. I suspect that most of them think it makes
perfect sense.
> It's your package and your call.
Yes, but if upstream actually *does* object in this case, that should
certainly be taken into strong consideration. Obviously, the
maintainer gets the deciding vote, but it's good to stay on good terms
with upstream developers.
--
Chris Waters xtifr@dsp.net | I have a truly elegant proof of the
or xtifr@debian.org | above, but it is too long to fit into
http://www.dsp.net/xtifr | this .signature file.
Reply to: