On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 14:25 -0700, Daniel Ostrow wrote:
>
> We release our packages as upstream intends. If they don't split them,
> we don't split them, talk to upstream not us.
Well that is not always the case. Not to contradict.
We tend to make packages in the Java world that are subsets of a
Daniel Ostrow wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 23:18 +0200, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>>
>> I know this issue is not actually in the scope of this list, but
>> maybe some of you might be interested:
>>
>> Lots of packages have optional parts which (IMHO) should/could be
>> their own
On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 23:18 +0200, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
>
> I know this issue is not actually in the scope of this list, but
> maybe some of you might be interested:
>
> Lots of packages have optional parts which (IMHO) should/could be
> their own packages, ie. GUI frontends to c
Hi folks,
I know this issue is not actually in the scope of this list, but
maybe some of you might be interested:
Lots of packages have optional parts which (IMHO) should/could be
their own packages, ie. GUI frontends to console tools (aumix) or
several language bindings of certain libs/toolk
