On Sat, May 15, 1999 at 10:59:08PM -0700, Chris Waters 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. Consider another case, mutt and urlview. We split them downstream even though they're all one package upstream. urlview is at least possibly useful to somebody using something other than mutt. And while it's included in the mutt package upstream, if you're tight on diskspace you can forgo the extra package if you like, or use something better. > > 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. true enough. I'm not sure in this case the objection is to a downstream split though. I could be wrong and it wouldn't be the first time. -- Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org> Debian GNU/Linux developer PGP: E8D68481E3A8BB77 8EE22996C9445FBE The Source Comes First! ------------------------------------------------------------------------- <doogie> Debian - All the power, without the silly hat.
Attachment:
pgpN2X9n6bAYe.pgp
Description: PGP signature