[ Stupid Cc: removed, please don't put it back ] Philippe Troin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1) The documentation for foo is there only once in the libfoog > package and libfoo has a symlink in /usr/doc to libfoog. /usr/doc/libpng0 isn't a symlink to libpng0g, it's an empty directory. If the documentation is substantial, why not have a libfoo-doc? (The documentation for libpng0g is 32k). Also you *can't* have a symlink from libfoo -> libfoog, that violates policy 5.6. > 3) One might argue that we could create additional package. This > would mean creating two extra packages: libfoo-support for the > common runtime files, [...] I have no problem where the dependency is real (i.e. depending on libfoog for binaries or conffiles), I've done this for pwdb (there is a conffile needed by libpwdb0 and libpwdb0g, it makes no sense to make duplicate copies of it). > 4) The libfoo and libfoo-altdev are *compatibility* package during > the libc5->libc6 transition. [...] This is irrelevant and in no way a justification of an artificial dependency. -- James
