Maybe there should not be a separate package for each tool, but at least st and dmenu should be packaged separately. Moreover, there IS a package named stterm in unstable which ships st separately (I've found it then published ITP for my version of st). It lacks Breaks/Conflicts with suckless-tools 38, but will overwrite it files.
Additionally, there was requests for packaging for xssstatus, which is (by upstream) a part of suckless-tools too, but (as for other suckless-tools) have separate tarball. For example, if xsstools will be included in main package, then «tools for minimalist window managers» will depend on xscreensaver even if they also includes dumb x locker. So, at least two or three of the tools already have reasons for making separate packages for them, that's not good — it's better then packages for one vendor organized in some common way. On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 2:09 AM, Joerg Jaspert <jo...@debian.org> wrote: > On 13218 March 1977, Dmitry Papchenkoff wrote: >> 10 packages, excluding metapackage. >> This work was originally done for test-packages for mentors.debian.net >> as an effort to update and clean up suckless-tools. >> But after posting packages to mentors I was requested to make ITP-bugs for >> it. >> So, I'll post ITP just for two packages and wait if maintainer or >> other users find it useful (if any) > > 10 packages for tools that in total in one package currently have an > installed size of ~190kb from one upstream? Thats not a good idea, quite > the contrary. > > -- > bye, Joerg > [...]that almost anything related to "intellectual property" is idiotic > by it's nature, [...] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/ca+-3s7tcug3ta2g-2a9nhb7vbgiyfavxyrtqcneu1s-n5ha...@mail.gmail.com
