Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
While this shouldn't be a limit for what we package, we can't
increase its size indefinitely. This one of the reasons why the gnome
applets were put in a single package.
I doubt that's really the case. gnome-applets is a single package
On Sat, Aug 24, 2002 at 09:48:12AM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...] but ignoring border cases, normal people have
one clock on the desktop at most, so single user systems don't need
more than package with one clock in it.
Ignoring border
on Fri, Aug 23, 2002 at 03:20:49PM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote about Re:
Dock Apps packaging, round 2:
I agree there is a problem with how we currently deal with our packages and
the archive. But it is a techical problem requiring a technical solution.
Making a few bundle packages
After the little discussion 2 weeks ago about the packaging of dock
apps, I come with a proposal.
Granularity is good. Until now, all dock apps have been packaged
separately to achieve best granularity. However, this is growing to an
impressive number of packages, which both bloats the archive
On Fri, Aug 23, 2002 at 08:03:59PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
After the little discussion 2 weeks ago about the packaging of dock
apps, I come with a proposal.
The proposed packages include many of the dockapps already in the
archive. Of course, if the current maintainer of a dockapp
On Friday 23 August 2002 11:03 am, Josselin Mouette wrote:
After the little discussion 2 weeks ago about the packaging of dock
apps, I come with a proposal.
Granularity is good. Until now, all dock apps have been packaged
separately to achieve best granularity. However, this is growing to an
Hi Sean!
You wrote:
Asking maintainers to give up their packages so you can bundle them
just seems wrong. Why not just make your bundles be meta packages?
Because people keep complaining about ITP's of packages they consider
crap and that are bloating the Packages files, according to those
On Friday 23 August 2002 01:12 pm, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
Hi Sean!
You wrote:
Asking maintainers to give up their packages so you can bundle them
just seems wrong. Why not just make your bundles be meta packages?
Because people keep complaining about ITP's of packages they consider
crap
Le ven 23/08/2002 à 22:31, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry a écrit :
And as I told Josselin when he started this -- so what. Let the old school
group complain all they want. I have always enjoyed that Debian's developers
are also its users and largely we are user driven. If I want to package
On Friday 23 August 2002 03:05 pm, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Second, there is the famous... TADA ! Packages file size !
While this shouldn't be a limit for what we package, we can't increase
its size indefinitely. This one of the reasons why the gnome applets
were put in a single package. I
On Fri, 23 Aug 2002, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
Or
remove all of the Java packages since we still don't have a free Java
implementation.
kaffe/gcj.
On Sat, Aug 24, 2002 at 12:05:50AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Second, there is the famous... TADA ! Packages file size !
While this shouldn't be a limit for what we package, we can't increase
its size indefinitely. This one of the reasons why the gnome applets
were put in a single
Le sam 24/08/2002 à 00:40, Jesus Climent a écrit :
The main difference is that gnome-applets does not contain 30 clocks, 20
network status applets, 35 battery status applets... while OTOH your
package system will end up in a complete set of clocks... to use 1 or
not at the end.
gnome-applets
On Fri, 2002-08-23 at 19:20, Josselin Mouette wrote:
gnome-applets contains 5 clocks, I'm proposing 7.
This was a bug; it's been fixed in GNOME 2.
14 matches
Mail list logo
