Yup, that's true. So we'll keep it in -common! :)  I still need to find the
time to rework them to make them as sensible as possible.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 11:50 PM, Ondřej Surý <ond...@sury.org> wrote:

> nginx-utils would only make sense in case the package would be Arch: any
> while nginx-common is Arch: all.
> And I guess the en/dis scripts are in a scripting language, right?
> Ondřej Surý
> On 20. 12. 2012, at 1:29, Thomas Ward <trekcaptainusa...@ubuntu.com>
> wrote:
> > I think the point of consideration for splitting into another package is
> this: For just these two scripts (one to enable a site, one to disable), do
> we really need to split them off into their own package, and add that as a
> dependency for all the versions of nginx, when we already have each version
> (-light, -full, -extra, etc.) depending on nginx-common?
> >
> > I think splitting these off into their own package (the proposed -utils
> package) is only a good idea if more utilities are planned in the future.
>  Otherwise, since the two scripts are going to be used for all versions of
> nginx (-light, -full, -extra, etc.), and if there's no plans for future
> utility scripts, then these should just be considered "common", and put in
> nginx-common.
> >
> > ------
> > Thomas

Reply via email to