Le lundi 9 octobre 2006 15:23, Daniel Baumann a écrit : > Adam Cécile (Le_Vert) wrote: > >> audacious-locales is only interesting, if you don't want the additional > >> locales installed, but it is unpacked only 1.5mb, not worthwile, include > >> that into audacious. splitted out locales is only worthwile for some > >> real large programs like openoffice.org, mozilla-* etc. > > > > It would save 1500+440 x supported_archs in the archive, I don't think > > it's so useless... But as you want (I still don't understand why separate > > packages could be a problem ;)). > > What I've written above is from the user point of view. > > >From the archive point of view, space isn't a problem, but useless > > binary packages are (britney has to consider every binary package > independently, which is stressing memory consumption etc.). > > >> as these pull-in jack and arts, it makes sense to keep these plugins as > >> a seperate package (as you mentioned and I agreed before). when you drop > >> the original audacious-plugins, you can just rename > >> audacious-plugins-extra into audacious-plugins. > > > > Well... This make sense but what's about uo-coming 1.2.0 release ? > > Upstream will release it as two separate sources tarball, one for the > > core software and lib, another one for all plugins. > > If the plugins and the core tarball are always released together, you > can include those two tarballs into one debian source package (the two > tarballs and unpack it while build:), which will not change the debian > binary packages/package relations. > > If not, you have to go through NEW anyway, so you don't gain anything > with it doing it now already, except that you have suboptimal packages now. > > -- > Address: Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Internet: http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann/
Re-uploaded ton mentors with all what you asked :) I hope it's ready, I'll be away for a few hours. Thanks in advance.
