On 13-Nov-2015, Axel Beckert wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> Ben Finney wrote:
> > My understanding is that ‘fte-docs’ is still very new in Debian.
> > Is that correct?
>
> No. [explanation of ‘fte-docs’ re-appearing in Debian]
>
> If it would have been a new binary package, I would have agreed. :-)
Thank
Hi Ben,
Ben Finney wrote:
> On 13-Nov-2015, Axel Beckert wrote:
> > I do have a patch for that (attached), but I actually think that the
> > upload, going through the NEW queue and annoying users with
> > transitional packages are not worth the effort.
>
> My understanding is that ‘fte-docs’ is s
On 13-Nov-2015, Axel Beckert wrote:
> I do have a patch for that (attached), but I actually think that the
> upload, going through the NEW queue and annoying users with
> transitional packages are not worth the effort.
My understanding is that ‘fte-docs’ is still very new in Debian. Is
that correc
Hi,
Ben Finney wrote:
> The overwhelming Debian convention for “documentation package for
> ‘foo’ package” is to name the documentation pacakge ‘foo-doc’.
Indeed. Only about 1.3% have -docs. (3282 vs 43)
> Please rename the ‘fte-docs’ package to ‘fte-doc’.
I do have a patch for that (attached),
Package: fte-docs
Version: 0.50.2b6-7
Severity: wishlist
The overwhelming Debian convention for “documentation package for
‘foo’ package” is to name the documentation pacakge ‘foo-doc’.
Please rename the ‘fte-docs’ package to ‘fte-doc’.
--
\ “In the Soviet Union, capitalism triumphed ove
5 matches
Mail list logo
