Control: severity -1 normal On 07-04-14 08:06, Abou Al Montacir wrote: > The decision to mark packages as Manually built was due to the fact that > these are considered as provider binaries.
Clear (an I thought so). Let's call these package library packages. > So users need to work with them in their binary format. Indeed, but it is our task to make sure it actually works (similar to c where you have to state the right "include foo.h" things). I didn't update the package yet, as you (Abou) seem to have a much clearer picture of fpc and lazarus than I have, that is why I shared my observations. > If you remove this, then Lazarus will build them in the user's home > directory for each user. Ok, let's not do that then, if we can figure out what goes wrong with doublecmd > There are 2 points here: I assume you added the third one later ;) > 1) It not relevant to package binary files if you know it will never be > used Ack > 2) On multi-user system this is consuming a huge amount of memory > useless. Ack (or disk space) > 3) It is working only because the source package is installed, while > this one is optional. Yeh, right. > So I don't agree that we need to remove the manual build flag, and I > don't agree that this is a critical bug as LC-QT is a alpha feature. Aha, now we are getting somewhere. If this QT thing is Alpha, why doesn't our package description say so. That would make things much clearer. I didn't know this for one thing, and I am building a qt version of my package winff, similar as Graham is doing with his package doublecmd. > I'd ask kindly to lower this bug severity or will do it myself in order > to avoid a useless removal from testing scheduled for April 14th. Done, but it doesn't solve the original problem for doublecmd as a qt package was build in the past. So the question remains, how should projects (or Debian packages) be handling this in a robust way? Apparently depending on the right package is not enough. Paul
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
