On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 08:57:46AM +0100, G?rkan Seng?n wrote: > >> I believe we need a new section called "gnustep", just like we have one > >> for gnome and kde. > > I think this is a good idea. Would it start by being populated with > > anything depending on gnustep*, or did I not think that through? What > > packages would that give? > Yep, this would also help me have less warnings in the gnustep-meta > packages ( http://www.linuks.mine.nu/i_debian/meta-gnustep/ ), can we > change lintian like this: > > If all agree that we add 'gnustep' to the section. I think > lintian package should be updated by adding 'gnustep' to: > lintian source > testset/info_tags.non-us, line 28 > checks/common_data.pm, line 21 > checks/fields.desc, line 172
This will happen automatically (well, sort of) by the lintian maintainers when policy gets changed (and not earlier than that). On topic: I don't really think a section for this few packages is worth it. Package count (binary, unstable of two days ago, without contrib and non-free) is below, and it shows that even the smallest section has nearly 300 packages. Maybe there are better splits to imagine (seperate compilers from devel? Client networking stuff from net (as opposed to server networking stuff)?) --Jeroen shells 292 news 327 embedded 383 electronics 515 oldlibs 647 comm 658 tex 700 hamradio 734 otherosfs 845 base 890 science 921 doc 1037 kde 1155 editors 1314 math 1429 misc 2049 mail 2233 perl 2482 gnome 2606 graphics 2765 text 2914 interpreters 3081 web 3233 python 3252 sound 3280 admin 3765 games 4724 x11 5217 utils 5333 devel 7002 net 8941 libdevel 11895 libs 13390 --Jeroen -- Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357) http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl
