Package: tech-ctte Hi,
The general case was discussed earlier and a recommendation was given at https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=934948#54 I'd like a confirmation from you if katex was following your recommendations or not. I think katex should be a separate binary package because it is shipping a user facing executable. But ftp masters don't agree with my interpretation. Their rejection mail and explanation is given below. Thanks Praveen -------- Original Message -------- From: Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> Sent: 2020, ജൂൺ 19 3:14:43 AM IST To: Pirate Praveen <prav...@onenetbeyond.org> Cc: pkg-javascript-de...@alioth-lists.debian.net, ftpmas...@ftp-master.debian.org, Debian Javascript Maintainers <pkg-javascript-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org> Subject: Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] node-katex_0.10.2+dfsg-2_amd64.changes REJECTED On Thursday, June 18, 2020 4:57:52 PM EDT Pirate Praveen wrote: > On 2020, ജൂൺ 19 1:40:09 AM IST, Bastian Blank > <ftpmas...@ftp-master.debian.org> wrote: > >The introduces an unnecessary split into katex and libjs-katex. > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=934948#54 > > * User-facing executable programs associated with a library should usually > be packaged in a non-library binary package whose name reflects the program > (for example tappy, flatpak, parted) or collection of related programs (for > example kmod, libsecret-tools, libglib2.0-bin), rather than being bundled > in the same binary package as the runtime library. > > Do you disagree with recommendation of ctte or you don't think it does not > apply here? You did read the rest of that, right? Scott K -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
