Hello! I'm cc:ing Joshua Rubin (the ThinkFinger co-maintinaer) and d-d to have more comments. On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 12:24:29 +0100, Marcus Better wrote: > Luca Capello wrote: >> Am I correct? Is tf-tool worth a single package or can I include >> it in libthinkfinger (as I'd prefer)? > > I think it's common practice to put the tools in a separate package, > and suggest the name thinkfinger-tools instead of tf-tool, since > it's easier for the user to identify what the package is for, and > since other tools may be added in the future. I'm aware of the common practice and this is the reason why I specifically asked for an advice. ATM I don't really see any reason to create a separate package just for tf-tool, because libthinkfinger + tf-tool (binary and manpage) should generate a package around less than 50K in size. In case new tools will be added, we can split the package. Is a strong reason against this? BTW, thanks for your suggestion about the package name, thinkfinger-tools would be definitively better. >> [2] I still have a problem, because e.g. "PAM module for the SGS >> Thomson Microelectronics fingerprint reader" is longer than the >> expected 60 characters for the short description. Suggestions >> welcome! > > Perhaps you can drop the word "Microelectronics" from the short > description. Yes, this was my choice after Rafael Laboissiere privately suggested. Thx, bye, Gismo / Luca
Attachment:
pgpDPouc57Tna.pgp
Description: PGP signature