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 ---------------------------------------------