Lucas Nussbaum dijo [Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 09:25:41AM +0100]: > > > But if i understand well, those circular dependencies will only last > > > during migration to new policy ? > > > > I don't really trust Bill's opinion on this. I've just asked > > debian-devel@. > > So, according to the feedback on debian-devel@, we should probably > duplicate the arch-independent part in every arch-dependent package, or > introduce a ruby-foo-common package that contains the common parts. > > I suggest that we just duplicate the files if it doesn't prevent > co-installability (i.e there are no files shipped in /usr/share, for > example). And switch to ruby-foo-common if it's required to bring > co-installability, or if the arch-independant parts are really huge.
...At least that sounds very consistent with the existing practice... And whether we use a -common package or not depends IMO on the size of the data in question. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
