On 12 May 2010 at 22:40, Don Armstrong wrote:
| On Thu, 13 May 2010, Paul Wise wrote:
| > On Wed, 2010-05-12 at 21:18 -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| > > 'sm' is the source for r-cran-sm which is not the screen-message source
| > > giving you the sm binary.
| >
| > I filed the bug against the sm binary package, not the sm source
| > package. I was under the impression that the BTS could now handle this
| > properly. ow...@bugs.d.o, is that not the case?
|
| This is the case, or at least, it should be.
|
| However, the whole idea of having source package which do not produce
| at least a binary of the same name is fundamentally broken, and I have
| spoken repeatedly against doing it.
Well narrowly spoken I then still do the right thing as my 'source pkg: sm'
with 'binary pkg: r-cran-sm' does provide the 'command'
library(sm)
inside R.
There can't be another 'binary command' for the R language, but every R users
refers to this as 'sm'.
But I know what you really imply. I do get the 'letter' but not the 'spirit'
of this suggestion.
--
Regards, Dirk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
