[Nathanael Nerode]
> Put it in the .diff.gz. If it's too large for that to seem
> reasonable to you, then you proabably shouldn't put it in your
> package. :-)
Heh, and how large is that? The combined effect of 'configure' and
'**/Makefile.in' can look pretty formidable, yet people exist who
c
Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello Jay,
>
> Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
>> My inclination would be decline requests to add unrelated packages to
>> psutils, but I thought I'd solicit input from others in case someone
>> has some perl (oops, pearl) of wisdom that I have overlooked. Thank
Hello Jay,
Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
> My inclination would be decline requests to add unrelated packages to
> psutils, but I thought I'd solicit input from others in case someone
> has some perl (oops, pearl) of wisdom that I have overlooked. Thanks!
IMHO (and I have suggested this particulary for
Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
>
>>From time to time, someone announces an intention to package some tiny
> script or program, and people suggest including it in some other
> package instead to avoid pollution of the archive with lots of tiny
> packages. Although I understand the reasoning and the issues
sean finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> hi jay,
>
> On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 12:27:33PM -0500, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
>> I'm not sure that, as an upstream author, I would necessarily want
>> the debian version of my package to be bundled with other software
>> that was similar in functionality but
On 12:27 Sat 19 Nov 2005, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
> little. I'm not sure that, as an upstream author, I would necessarily
> want the debian version of my package to be bundled with other
> software that was similar in functionality but otherwise unrelated to
> my package.
I don't agree with this, t
hi jay,
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 12:27:33PM -0500, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
> From time to time, someone announces an intention to package some tiny
> script or program, and people suggest including it in some other
> package instead to avoid pollution of the archive with lots of tiny
> packages. Alt
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Jay
Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
>>From time to time, someone announces an intention to package some tiny
> script or program, and people suggest including it in some other
> package instead to avoid pollution of the archive with lots of tiny
> packages.
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 12:27:33PM -0500, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
> impediments (like licensing problems), do people generally think that
> it's reasonable to do this even if the other packages aren't really
> part of the upstream package? If so, are there usual mechanisms for
> doing this? What a
9 matches
Mail list logo
