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 >