also sprach Bart Samwel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007.06.16.2209 +0100]: > > don't kill me, instead split acpi-support into acpi-support-ibm, > > acpi-support-toshiba, … please? :) > > Sorry, I think I have to refuse this one (without killing you ;-) ). > There are various reasons for not wanting this:
Thanks for taking the time to argue your position. wontfix is acceptable for me, but I still challenge it a bit below: > * The acpi-support package is intended to contain a library that > associates laptop models and the required package behaviours. Many > of the behaviours are not as clear-cut as "toshiba" vs. "ibm" > versus "dell" versus "asus". so how about acpi-support-common? > * apt cannot detect the specific laptop model, this detection is > left to acpi-support. Therefore, acpi-support *must* be able to > support all laptops out-of-the-box, *or* it must detect the > laptops and install the additional packages automatically. But > this would again require knowledge about the existing laptop > models in the core package, which would defeat the entire purpose > of splitting the package up! you can provide acpi-support which depends on acpi-support-*. Please see how xorg-video-drivers-all works. > * The split would yield a lot of *very* small packages, consisting > only of a couple of settings and a tiny number of config files. > This is probably overkill. Well, it would allow me to use acpi-support and actually make sense of /etc/acpid/* by removing all the stuff that I will never need. This is Debian, after all... -- .''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :' : proud Debian developer, author, administrator, and user `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck - http://debiansystem.info `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)
