[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
>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 here
(additional overhead for e
10 matches
Mail list logo
