* Nicholas Bamber schrieb:
>However I have to say that Debian as a whole cannot have it both
> ways. Either ftp-master lifts the restriction on
Is there any hard reason for such restrictions ?
> small modules or there has to be decent support for "components". I have
> started work on th
Raphael,
Thanks for the feedback.
However I have to say that Debian as a whole cannot have it both
ways. Either ftp-master lifts the restriction on
small modules or there has to be decent support for "components". I have
started work on this
(http://github.com/periapt/pkg-components/blo
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010, David Bremner wrote:
> Well, OK, I see your point. But what should we do about e.g. tiny perl
> modules. My/our impression was that ftp-master was not keen on having
> many small packages. For example, libcatalyst-modules-perl has installed
> size of 1468k, but bundles 81 modul
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 21:29:29 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> In the article, I mentionned that bundling unrelated software is not a
> good idea in general (mainly because there's no common software
> version to use).
>
> So I think that we should not create any infrastructure to make it
> even e
On Thu, 09 Sep 2010, Nicholas Bamber wrote:
> I have recently looked into a number of bundle packages. All of them
> have different implementations of the debian/rules although the ones
> I looked at had clearly once had a common parent. Hence I have been
> kept awake at night thinking how this sit
I have been looking into the packaging of bundles - that is packages
that have multiple upstream sources. There was recently an article on
the subject:
http://raphaelhertzog.com/2010/09/07/how-to-use-multiple-upstream-tarballs-in-debian-source-packages/
.
However one must notice this quote:
"T
6 matches
Mail list logo
