On 2011-11-10 11:55, Arno Töll wrote: > Hi, > On 10.11.2011 10:01, Björn Esser wrote: >> jailkit -- here go all the c-binaries >> jailkit-common -- here go python-scripts, manpages, other no-arch > > why? Wouldn't it make slightly more sense to put the manpage where the > corresponding executables lie in? That would also solve your problem. > > Also I do not see any benefit in splitting your package after all. You > do not seem to provide any alternative to jailkit (the binary package is > meant here), hence there is no "common" gound to share with another > binary package. What's the size of the common package? Unless your > arch:all data is huge you shouldn't be splitting it. >
Hey, If you need an architecture independent package anyway, putting the manpage in there saves a little space on the mirrors, so you might as well do it[1]. People have been doing this for years as far as I know[2], so I guess either way makes sense as long as the architecture-dependent package has a strict dependency on the architecture independent package. ~Niels [1] I know, this is most likely a "tiny" amount. [2] The bug requesting lintian to support this is nearly 10 years old today. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
