--- Dexter Graphic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Your use of the term "politics" here makes it sound like you believe that > Debian's software inclusion policies are arbitrary and senseless.
No, not senseless or arbitrary, but frustrating for sure. Lots of good packages fail certain tests and due to the unique nature of Debian, often people don't follow up in a timely manner... I really think the below rejection was a quibble... it should have passed muster. ? From my > reading of the text below (which I do not fully understand) it seems that > there is a problem with OpenOffice.org not providing language-packages. > > Chris uploaded OpenOffice.org to debian in the last weeks, but it was > rejected, > > because, the Debian OpenOffice.org Team should provide source-packages of > the > > language-packages of OpenOffice.org. But this is not possible, because the > > language-packages are build at buildtime from the same source as > > OpenOffice.org. Splitting up the sourcepackage is not possible. In other words: The main Debian maintainer of the archives rejected added the packages because the _source_ package (which most people don't use) wasn't split into pieces (ie languages) and the binaries of the languages forced people to download the entire source. In others, this WAS purely politics, since it's open source and all of the code is _there_, but wasn't packaged as cleanly as the archivist felt it should have been. __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Eug-LUG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.efn.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/eug-lug
