[pkg-horde] Comments regarding horde3_3.3.3+debian0-1_i386.changes

[Frank Lichtenheld]

On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 12:33:18AM +0100, Gregory Colpart wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 06:44:22PM +0000, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> > 
> > I don't see how this new version addresses my concern about
> > the pear-horde-channel package. Any reason why I shouldn't
> > reject it with the exact same reason again?
> 
> I don't know your concern about the pear-horde-channel package.
> I know only #514007 where Mathieu Parent (the submitter) says
> that ftp-master ask to find a proper place for this...
> Could you repeat your concern please?

Ok, the original discussion was like this:
<------------------------->
On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 10:05:28AM +0100, Mathieu Parent wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 11:18 PM, Frank Lichtenheld <ftpmaster at debian.org> wrote:
> > Package is empty
> 
> Package is not empty it contains maintainers scripts (postinst, prerm)
> that installs a PHP pear channel. This package is a
> Build-Depends-Indep of five php-kolab-* packages
> (<http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/pkg-kolab/>) that will be uploaded soon.
> 
> > ===
> >
> > If you don't understand why your files were rejected, or if the
> > override file requires editing, reply to this email.
> >
> 
> Hope the above explanation is OK. Should we upload the package again ?

No. The overhead of a package is too big to allow one
that only consists of two one-line shell scripts.

Please find a way to merge that into a bigger package or into the
source packages that need it for building.

Gruesse,
-- 
Frank Lichtenheld <djpig at debian.org>
www: http://www.djpig.de/
<-------------------------->

I realize now that at this point pear-horde-channel was a source package
whereas now it is only a binary package, so that at least partly
addressed my concerns. I will take another look.

Gruesse,
-- 
Frank Lichtenheld <djpig at debian.org>
www: http://www.djpig.de/