On Mon, 18 Apr 2011, Julien BLACHE wrote: > I NACKed that because the package would be ridiculously small and this > is/has been a cause of REJECT.
Well with multiarch shortly ahead of us it's more and more important for lib* packages to have only the library files and not any sort of support file. So there will be other similar cases and I doubt the ftpmasters will reject them. Their concerns should not forbid us to do the right thing in terms of library packaging. > Moreover the transition isn't as big as you seem to imply, there aren't > a lot of packages outside the GNOME world using libimobiledevice just > yet. This is pretty self-contained and can be handled together with > GNOME. Well, we can't bin-nmu in experimental so it means fake source upload in experimental with increased build-dep just to be able to provide updated binaries of all packages using libimobiledevice1... That doesn't seem good. > Finally, there's also the option of dropping the FDI file entirely, > given we plan to get rid of HAL sooner rather than later. I'm not sure > about the status of non-Linux architectures wrt libimobiledevice, so the > lack of HAL support there may be a moot point. Several of the reverse build-dependencies of libimobiledevice-dev use it with an architecture restriction [linux-any] but not all of them. I don't know how important that FDI file is in the grand scheme of the library. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Follow my Debian News ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.com (English) ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.fr (Français) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
