Re: compressed binaries in packages, for or against?
On Sat, Apr 21, 2001 at 06:47:08PM -0400, Itai Zukerman wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 13:36:36 -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > I was recently mailed about lintian failing on UPX compressed binaries in
> > packages.
> How does it fail? (In what way do the compressed binaries not conform
> to policy?)
I think he means "fail" in the sense of "doesn't operate properly".
But to address the other part of your question, even though it's not
relevent: something doesn't have to be against policy for us to not
want it. I could package up a GPL'd worm to comply 100% with policy,
and it's still not something we'd want in the archive.
In the case of compressed binaries, it's something that a *sensible*
person might recognize as something that people may have reservations
about. A sensible person would ask about packaging up compressed
binaries before attempting to inflict them on the Project. This is
not some game where you try to play fast and loose with the rules to
get one over on the other players. This is a cooperative effort where
we all try to work together to make a system that makes us all happy.
A snide question like "in what way do compressed binaries not conform
to policy" really makes me worry about the person who would ask.
Chris Waters | Pneumonoultra- osis is too long
email@example.com | microscopicsilico- to fit into a single
or firstname.lastname@example.org | volcaniconi- standalone haiku