On Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 10:48:14PM +0200, Jelmer Vernooij wrote: > > Any good reason for this being a separate package instead of becoming > > part of bzrtools? > Yes, it's a different upstream package.
I was indeed too cryptic, sorry, let me explain. I don't want to see a bzr-foo package in the archive for each .py module available on the internet which provides yet another sub-command for bzr. I asked under the (wrong) assumption that bzrtools was a Debian package shipping in a single Debian package several bzr addons. Under that assumption it seemed reasonable to avoid creating a new package, bug including your new addons as part of it. Since my assumption was wrong: what about creating a "bzr-addons" Debian package containing the most used bzr addons out there instead of filing an ITP for just one? Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ............... now what? [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ (15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema ? /\ All one has to do is hit the (15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema \/ right keys at the right time
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
