Le May 13, 2008 09:39:38 am Lennart Sorensen, vous avez écrit : > On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 09:42:31PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote: > > No, a more frequent change is disabling/enabling modules [on some arch]. > > Even if you were right, adding new module packages doesn't "justify" > > updating other modules. Reusing the ice* example, suppose that Debian > > would have such an icezoo source package and Mozilla would release a new > > IRC client. Adding, say, icebear, to the packages generated by icezoo > > wouldn't make me happy, because I'd have to update iceweasel even if I > > wouldn't use icebear. Otherwise, I wouldn't like iceweasel updates to be > > blocked just because icebear has a serious regression. > > You can't compare something stupid like that, with something useful like > building the kernel modules. Packaging icebear wouldn't necessarily be useless. I defined it as yet another IRC client for the sake of the example. You can imagine it as yet another media player if you think that's more useful.
-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]