Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Otavio Salvador <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> And no one is obliged to do all like James think. The package follow
>> the policy and doesn't have any point in policy talking about size
>> requeriments.
>
> Policy is not everything that counts. Just because policy doesnt say
> something it means it is good to do it.
Of course but I think if the developper did something is because he
think this is better and this should be respected (if doesn't broke
the policy)
> Its a useless split, not needed and there is no benefit for the users.
> One can say its against users - everyone that wants .el files needs to
> install another package. :)
>
>> Yes but to my sense is really better to enduser have this packages
>> splited since the search-citeseer can work (without problems) without
>> the -el part and I want provide this option for our users.
>
> "It can work without" is not enough for a split. One reason, but not
> everything. If we would split everything that "works without the rest
> in the package" we would end up with thousands of useless small
> packages. We already have enough packages in the list, we dont need
> things there we can avoid without problems.
More or less. Doesn't make sense include a depends of Emacs in
search-citeseer and the -el part depends of this. The better option is
split in two package each with your depends and needs.
The sugestion of James is not right to include emacs like a suggets is
not good since the package need emacsen to work.
--
O T A V I O S A L V A D O R
---------------------------------------------
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] UIN: 5906116
GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855
Home Page: http://www.freedom.ind.br/otavio
---------------------------------------------
