Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 04:02:51PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > I can see justification for making a rule that one shouldn't have a > > dependency on a package with invariant manual sections. > > And what justification would that be?
Um, fill it in yourself. I expect you would agree with such a rule. (A rule like "invariant manual sections can't be in Debian" includes what you quote above as a special case, right?) If you agree that there is such a justification, then we can move on. > > If the primary motivation in this discussion is what's easiest and > > most convenient for the users, then obviously "keep it in emacs20 and > > keep that package in Debian" is easiest and most convenient. > > Yes, that argument has been raised many times to support putting > Netscape in main, too. Right, so the question (which was my *point* in the message you have quoted here, durnitall) is whether it goes in main, not what the name of the package is.
