Jay Berkenbilt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 08:13:32PM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote: >> > So: I suggest you submit it for addition to renameutils. >> > As a side effect, renameutils and your package get a comaintainer. >> >> Hmmm. Maybe you should see if the renameutils maintainer is >> willing/interested in including it first; if not I will look at it. >> >> I agree that it makes sense for it to be separate from perl; but perhaps >> not separate from renameutils. > > I have to assert, respectfully, that I don't think patmv belongs with > renameutils or any other existing package. I guess I'm confused as to > why the suggestion of including it in another package has come up at > all. patmv is its own package with a life outside of these other > packages. That should, in my opinion, be sufficient reason to have it > be a separate package. I think most upstream authors would be > reluctant to have their software added to Debian by being combined > with some other package that they don't have anything to do with. If > you disagree, please let me know; I'm definitely open to hearing > compelling arguments to the contrary.
Tiny packages are generally frowned upon in Debian since they unnecessarily bloat the Packages file. So, small scripts like yours tend to be collected into a single package with other related scripts. If everyone packaged their pet scripts into separate packages, the already very large number of packages in Debian would grow enormously. -- You win again, gravity! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
