> Hi all, > > On 12/23/05, Christian Holm Christensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Richards packages has some good things, in that it makes development >> packages for some of the add-ons, which I do not. That's on my TODO >> list. We (Kevin McCarthy and I, and to some extent the ROOT team) has >> put some effort into letting ROOT use DFSG-free TTF files, allowing ROOT >> to go into `main' rather than `contrib' or even `non-free'. Also, I've >> tried to do all sorts of system integration, from desktop entries, to >> services. >> >> On mirror.phy.bnl.gov, we try to provide debs for stable and unstable, >> for i386 and amd64. >> >> I don't want to go into religious wars on this, but perhaps we could >> agree to focus our effort a bit here. > > I think this is an excellent idea -- it could contribute to user > confusion if there continue to be two sets of somewhat incompatible > .debs out there, especially now that both are targeted at ROOT 5.x. > Really the best features of both efforts should be pooled. I > apologize that I'm not sure of what are the biggest obstacles to such > a merger. "Religious wars" makes it sound like a difference in > philosophy. Even so, could it help if we set up a CVS repository on > alioth or something that would make it easier for people to combine > work? >
Any confusion that may arise out there is solved by putting ROOT into debian itself. To agree on that would be a big step. A CVS repository on alioth would certainly be a step towards that end. The term "Religious wars" is inappropiate to this list. Nevertheless I agree there are differeces in how the two packagings are tackled. One is very conventional, with a static debian/ directory, the other is automated, creating a debian/ directory on the fly (very elegant but not always successful). Ricardo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
