On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Jan 7 01:28, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
> > Right now I'm looking at the debian packages instead:
> > http://packages.debian.org/unstable/source/fortune-mod
> > http://packages.debian.org/unstable/source/fortunes-bofh-excuses
> >
> > which generate 5 packages: fortune-mod (the binaries),
> > fortunes-min, fortunes, fortunes-off, and fortunes-bofh-excuses.
> >
> > If these look ok to me, do you see any problem with using them instead?
> > (There are also a lot of non-English data files packages that I'm not
> > going to mess with at the moment.)
>
> Personally I'd rather see only one fortune package. Using the -o
> plus rot13 technique should really do it.
I'm with Corinna here. Fortune does not warrant 5 packages, or even 3.
One package is sufficient. ROT13 and mark the limericks with -o and move
on. Deviating from an already established convention for packaging a
given program is just asking for trouble, and you're artificially making
more work than is necessary. K.I.S.S. !!
> Corinna
--
Peter A. Castro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> or <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Cats are just autistic Dogs" -- Dr. Tony Attwood
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
