Hello, It seems I missed this mail.
Michael Koch, le Wed 09 Sep 2009 18:39:41 +0200, a écrit : > On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 06:06:41PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > reassign 544546 fop > > retitle 544546 should provide libfop-java > > Why? There is no real need to for this. Any packages can depend on fop > and be done. Sure, but it's common practice in Debian to separately package libraries and programs. For instance, fop notably depends on X libraries, which libfop-java wouldn't, and that can be a noticeable difference for application servers which would want to make use of fop. > The reason why it was called fop and not libfop-java was that > it is not only a library but also a program. Sure. I'm just suggesting to split the current fop binary into fop and libfop-java. Samuel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
