Comments regarding pd-arraysize_0.1-1_amd64.changes

[IOhannes m zmoelnig]

On 2010-11-07 19:57, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>
>> i think this is to be discussed on this list.
>> i don't know whether it's good practice, and esp. i don't know whether
>> its worse practice than creating a debian package for 2 smallish files.
> 
> It is not good practice, it is a special case based on the upstream
> distribution that has existed for many years.  Why exclude a useful
> package purely because its only two small files?  Shall we remove lots
> of kernel modules for the same reason/
> 


i don't think we are in a position to remove kernel module packages or
collate them into a single one.

the usefulness of the very object we are talking about has been debated
and the conclusion is, that it is there merely for legacy reasons.

there _is_ a number of packages that bundle serveral smallish useful
scripts/macros/thingies together, regardless of authors, so it is not
that bad a practice you believe it is.

fgmasdr
IOhannes



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3636 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-multimedia-maintainers/attachments/20101108/fcfc56fe/attachment.bin>