On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 12:48:25 -0600 Bob Gobeille <bob.gobei...@hp.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 10, 2009, at 12:20 PM, Matt Taggart wrote: > > >> Are you saying you would rather move it to a separate package than > >> remove it from the main package? > > > > I'm saying it should remain the the upstream fossology tarball, > > but for > > Debian I can put it in a separate package that won't be required > > (the fossology-agents package will only Recommends instead of > > Depends). > > > So far we have the following options: > > 1) Do nothing. Leave as is. > 2) Make pkgmetagetta a separate package (requires minor code changes > and pkgmetagetta will never do selftest even if installed) > 3) Leave packaging alone, but make same minor code changes as in 2, > so that pkgmetagetta is NEVER run. > > I don't feel strongly about this but am asking for feedback to find > out if users would like a change. > > Votes > taggart: option 1 or 2 > bobg: option 1, 2, or 3 ;-) (As an observer only these days) I think my vote is 1 or 2. Leaving it in the source tarball, but explicitly requiring people to build it if they want it seems fair. kk -- Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS) Debian contributor / gNewSense Maintainer http://www.kgoetz.id.au No, I won't join your social networking group
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ fossology mailing list fossology@fossology.org http://fossology.org/mailman/listinfo/fossology
