On 29-Aug-01, 12:18 (CDT), Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Previously Steve Greenland wrote: > > I also think the standalone .deb argument is pretty bogus. > > I disagree. A standalone .deb should never be less useful to people then > one that is in some archive.
How is it less useful? A standalone .deb w/o a Package file doesn't integrate into apt or dselect, so there's no where to show the descriptions. The only reason one would have an interest in such a .deb is that one already has a pretty good idea of what it is, presumably from an accompaning README, or the webpage with a link, or somesuch. I doubt very many people go around browsing random .debs with 'dpkg-deb -I'. I, as a developer, am responsible for what is in my packages. How can I be responsible for things I can't read? I mean, I suppose I could work my way through one of the Western Europeans. But Polish? Or Korean? Hah! My contention is that any package sufficiently widely used to attract/justify translated descriptions is very likely to be worth setting up an archive for. Hell, I set up apt-able archives for my local packages that no one ever sees but me, just because I want to have consistent package management. It's just not that big a deal. Steve
