On 05/09/2012 04:42 AM, Dag Wieers wrote: > On Mon, 7 May 2012, Olivier Bilodeau wrote: > >> I contacted the maintainer. He gave me two other things to do: >> >> - vim plugin should be separately [sub]packaged >> - build the git doc with it and it shall still be pretty >> >> I'll get to tasks, eventually, and let you guys know. > > I'll give you my view of sub-packages on this. I think Fedora is making > the mistake to create too many sub-packages and loosing control over > what makes packages useful. > > I don't see the point in making a separate vim sub-package, given that > the vim syntax file is pretty small, a sub-package does not offer > anything subtantially, a subpackage increases the chance that someone > will not install it and does not know it exists which is bad for the > repository and the project (in this case vim and/or asciidoc) and most > of all, there is no real downside to shipping the plugin even when vim > is not installed. > > So my opinion is that these sub-package rules is a form of bureaucratic > autism, where any introduced rules are more important than the case at > hand and defy common sense. > > Of course, there are cases where they can make sense. >
I see your point. I'll ask the maintainer. However I just realized that most vim ftplugin are provided by vim-commons (it provides 175 of them) and not individually provided by git, dpkg, mplayer or xfree86 (as a few examples). So maybe that's the route it should take? -- Olivier Bilodeau [email protected] :: +1.514.447.4918 *115 :: www.inverse.ca Inverse inc. :: Leaders behind SOGo (www.sogo.nu) and PacketFence (www.packetfence.org) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "asciidoc" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/asciidoc?hl=en.
