On Montag, 1. September 2003 16:09, Ben Burton wrote:
> > It wouldn't have harmed anyone but I think it doesn't make much sense
> > either - you don't have one for kde-i18n also.
>
> Which of course is not a particularly strong reason of itself.
>
> Anyway, I personally don't care too much whether
> It wouldn't have harmed anyone but I think it doesn't make much sense
> either - you don't have one for kde-i18n also.
Which of course is not a particularly strong reason of itself.
Anyway, I personally don't care too much whether the metapackage exists
or not - I'm mainly arguing against what
On Montag, 1. September 2003 15:17, Ben Burton wrote:
> > Ugh, why do you want to introduce a metapackage ? Is there a reason
> > for that ? kde-i18n doesn't have nor need one either :-)
>
> The reason for suggesting it was for the sort of people who would
> traditionally download koffice-i18n fro
> Ugh, why do you want to introduce a metapackage ? Is there a reason
> for that ? kde-i18n doesn't have nor need one either :-)
The reason for suggesting it was for the sort of people who would
traditionally download koffice-i18n from the KDE servers and build and
install it.
As I see it, if y
On Montag, 1. September 2003 04:01, Ben Burton wrote:
> Hi. I'm preparing a koffice-i18n upload ATM so we can get it into sarge
> before things start to freeze.
>
> Based on the latest discussion regarding package splitting with
> kde-i18n, my initial plan is to simply upload 30 different
> koffic
Hi. I'm preparing a koffice-i18n upload ATM so we can get it into sarge
before things start to freeze.
Based on the latest discussion regarding package splitting with
kde-i18n, my initial plan is to simply upload 30 different
koffice-i18n-foo binary packages plus an additional koffice-i18n
metap
6 matches
Mail list logo
