On Mon, 16 Jul 2001, Curtis Veit wrote:
> > Sure, that's fine - but that's not what I was referring too. I'm
> > against pruning out debian files for rpm's and vice versa. Maybe my
> > response wasn't correct for Curtis' orriginal question . . .
>
> Actually I am against pruning anything out. The size of these
> files is very small.
Sure. But not the size of these files is the reason for our conflict. It
is the _number_ of these files. Our goal is to support as many platforms
as possible and therefore the number of packaging-spec-files increase.
What we want to avoid is loosing the overview in the toplevel-directory.
> As a debian user I still might want to look at the rpm spec file even
> though I am using the debian stuff.
>
> I don't see the issue with or reason for links can someone enlighten me?
See above.
> I was concerned about generating actual binary packages (rpm or .deb)
> If binary packages are made for deb systems on a redhat box, it is
> possible to have broken executables due to library issues. I just
> noted that we can build and supply source packages (SRPM and source
> debs) easily but that it might be best to *not* supply binary
> packages. (Except if they are built on and for a specific target
> system.)
If you can supply debian-packages for GGI, then I suggest you to contact
our debian package maintainer. Ask Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for his
mail-address.
CU,
Christoph Egger
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
