On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 12:35:31PM -0800, Daniel Burrows wrote: > On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 04:26:34PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL > PROTECTED]> was heard to say: > > Nicolas Boullis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 12:13:48PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > > >> Hello Debian developers, > > >> > > >> When doing research about circular-deps, I looked at a lot of packages > > >> that are split between a binary package and a data package. This is a > > >> good thing since this reduce the total siez of the archive, however > > >> there are simple rules that should be followed: > > >> > > >> 3) Keep the files that 'signal' executables in the same package than the > > >> executable (e.g. menu file, program manpage). > > > > > > Why? I agree that it menu files and manpages are generally not that > > > large, but what would it break to have them in pkg-data? > > > (I would consider it strange to have such files out of the main pkg > > > package, but it looks policy-compliant as far as I can see...) > > > > > > > > > Nicolas > > > > foo depends on foo-data. But foo-data does NOT depend on foo. > > > > So an "apt-get install foo-data", while being useless, is consistent > > for dpkg. After that you would end up with a menu entry for foo but no > > foo binary. > > Shouldn't menu refuse to create menu entries for "foo" if the foo package > is not installed? At least, I thought that's what > > ?package(foo): ...
It does, provide you don't do ?package(foo-package): of course. Cheers, -- Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
