Em Ter, 2005-06-28 às 00:43 +0200, Andreas Barth escreveu: > Hi, All, Hey, > As always, the full canoncial list of the RC policy for etch is available > at http://release.debian.org/etch_rc_policy.txt . I feel there's too much redundancy there when taking debian policy into account, is that redundancy really needed? I have a question about this requirement: Packages must not install programs in the default PATH with different functionality with the same file name, even if they Conflict:. Totem and Glade, for example, generate two binary packages each which are mutually exclusive. totem-gstreamer certainly provides functionality which is different from the one provided by totem-xine. The same goes for glade/glade-gnome: the first provides the nice UI builder, the second adds GNOME-related widgets and functionality. I and Sebastien, totem's maintainer, feel that it would not be a good idea to apply this requirement on these cases. Do you have a rationale for this requirement? Would you mind elaborating on that? Thanks, -- kov@debian.org: Gustavo Noronha <http://people.debian.org/~kov> Debian: <http://www.debian.org> * <http://www.debian-br.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part