At Sun, 1 Nov 2015 12:33:19 -0800,
Josh Triplett wrote:
>
> Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > But good luck to teach good practices upstream. See Ross's reply: 120
> > packages are depending on this.
>
> It's more than that. Given tooling that doesn't have excessive overhead
> for small packages, why
On 2015-11-02 22:55, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> It's not the package which is a bad practice, here, the maintainer is
> only dealing with upstream.
>
> What's a bad practice is creating a library for 2 lines of code.
> Upstream should have tried to integrate this function into a bigger
> library
Hi,
[just picking a few random bits]
On Sun, Nov 01, 2015 at 12:33:19PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Files, Checksums-Sha1, and Checksums-Sha256 are clearly redundant; has
> it been long enough that we can drop the first two yet?
apt/jessie should be fine with that, but as mentioned the last
On Sun, Nov 01, 2015 at 12:33:19PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> In the Packages files for binaries, we could eliminate a *massive*
> amount of redundancy by having a dedicated Packages file for "all", to
> avoid duplicating entries into every architecture's Packages file.
See [1]. However there
On 11/01/2015 09:33 PM, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> But good luck to teach good practices upstream. See Ross's reply: 120
>> packages are depending on this.
>
> It's more than that. Given tooling that doesn't have excessive overhead
> for small packages, why call such
Hi,
Quoting Josh Triplett (2015-11-01 21:33:19)
> "Binary" seems a bit excessive for several reasons. First, it seems
> redundant with the "Source" entries in Packages files; we don't
> necessarily need a two-way cross-reference at all here. And second, we
> could assume that a missing entry
Thomas Goirand wrote:
> But good luck to teach good practices upstream. See Ross's reply: 120
> packages are depending on this.
It's more than that. Given tooling that doesn't have excessive overhead
for small packages, why call such packages "bad practices" in the first
place?
> Though it is
7 matches
Mail list logo
