On Wed, 2011-10-05 at 08:38:43 +0200, Sandro Tosi wrote: > On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 07:56, Guillem Jover <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, 2011-08-13 at 18:58:52 +0200, Sandro Tosi wrote: > >> currently dpkg-report is shipped as an example (compressed too), shilw it > >> would > >> make sense to ship it as a "real" tool, that can be used from the > >> command-line. > >> If you wonder if it's worth a new bin pkg, as already stated on your blog, > >> no, > >> you can keep ship it in the lib pkg but in /usr/bin . > > > > I'd kindly ask not to fulfill this request, to avoid taking over the > > dpkg namespace (and divering CLI conventions, etc). In addition I'd > > rather see the libdpkg-log-perl modules merged back into libdpkg-perl, > > and the possible dpkg-report (or other name) provided by some of the > > packages from the dpkg source, but not dpkg itself due to it not > > wanting perl dependencies (or the program would need to be rewritten > > in sh or C). > > I'd be happy with whatever outcome there will be (either make the > program public or be merged into dpkg* pkg) but I do agree that this > perl module and its companion tool seem better fitting into the dpkg* > official packages. > > Patrick: what are your feelings about this merge? Guillem: what are > the steps needed to merge this package into some dpkg one?
I think most of this was already discussed in #608930, where Patrick semeed fine with the idea. regards, guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
