On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 05:32:11PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote: > Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Otavio Salvador <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >> And no one is obliged to do all like James think. The package follow > >> the policy and doesn't have any point in policy talking about size > >> requeriments. > > > > Policy is not everything that counts. Just because policy doesnt say > > something it means it is good to do it. > > Of course but I think if the developper did something is because he > think this is better and this should be respected (if doesn't broke > the policy)
You've had about 8 people tell you that what you did was a bad idea, along with some pretty reasoned arguments why. (Make mine no. 9 - for all the reasons already mentioned). When public opinion comes out overwhelmingly against you, it's usually time to think "hmm, I may be wrong there" rather than "everybody else is stupid". > > "It can work without" is not enough for a split. One reason, but not > > everything. If we would split everything that "works without the rest > > in the package" we would end up with thousands of useless small > > packages. We already have enough packages in the list, we dont need > > things there we can avoid without problems. > > More or less. Doesn't make sense include a depends of Emacs in > search-citeseer and the -el part depends of this. The better option is > split in two package each with your depends and needs. Extending your argument just a bit, then there'd be a Debian package for every binary, along with a bunch more for the collections of files all those binaries need to work. It Just Won't Scale. > The sugestion of James is not right to include emacs like a suggets is > not good since the package need emacsen to work. And the only people who will give a crap about the -el working are those who have emacs. Presumably installed, so they won't notice that it needs emacs to work. I truly believe it's time to cut your losses, swallow your pride, and move on. Unless the lurkers support you in e-mail, of course. - Matt
