On 2009-09-22 09:11 +0200, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 09:01, Sven Joachim <svenj...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
>> On 2009-09-21 23:31 +0200, Sandro Tosi wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 23:02, Sven Joachim <svenj...@gmx.de> wrote:
>>>> | I: ne: arch-dep-package-has-big-usr-share 2424kB 89%
>>>
>>> could not be an issue.
>>
>> If I'll ask for an RFS, I want to fix this first. Should not be too
>> difficult and would give me some packaging training.
>
> yes, but I didn't look at the package so I don't know if it's really
> something to fix (for example, if it's all documentation, then yes a
> -doc package is highly encouraged).
Indeed, most of it is documentation:
,----
| % du -s /usr/share/doc/ne /usr/share/info/ne* /usr/share/ne
| 2052 /usr/share/doc/ne
| 60 /usr/share/info/ne.info.gz
| 316 /usr/share/ne
`----
My plan would be to split the documentation out into ne-doc, but leave
the runtime files under /usr/share/ne in the main package for now,
although they could be moved to an ne-data package as well. What is
your opinion?
>> Regardless of whether I do that or not, I have just asked to be added to
>> the collab-maint group so that I can put my Git repository there (don't
>> want to use my home directory on Alioth for that package).
>
> Note that QA uploads don't need to be "that difficult" to do, so also
> a git repo could be overkilling: probably the next uploaders won't use
> the collab-qa repository (because they don't like git, don't want to
> deal with a SCM, etc).
I'll take that into consideration.
Cheers,
Sven
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
