[Pkg-octave-devel] New mscripts package [was: Re: Updating octave3.0 to Policy 3.8.0]

[Rafael Laboissiere]

* Thomas Weber <thomas.weber.mail at gmail.com> [2008-06-25 07:36]:

> On 23/06/08 21:53 +0200, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> > I: octave3.0: arch-dep-package-has-big-usr-share 5492kB 19%
> > N:
> > N:   The package has a significant amount of architecture-independent data
> > N:   in /usr/share, while it is an architecture-dependent package. This is
> > N:   wasteful of mirror space and bandwidth, as we then end up with
> > N:   multiple copies of this data, one for each architecture.
> > N:
> > N:   If the data in /usr/share is not architecture-independent, it is a
> > N:   policy violation, and in this case, you should move that data
> > N:   elsewhere.
> > N:
> > N:   See also:
> > N:   http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ch-best-pkging-practice
> > N:   s#s-bpp-archindepdata
> > 
> > Although this is just Lintian "information" level, it is written above that
> > this is a "policy violation".  
> Only if this data is not architecture independent. Should be mostly .m
> files.
> 
> > Should we move the /usr/share/octave/
> > directory into an arch-indep package?  We could call it octave3.0-mscripts
> > (or whatever) and make octave3.0 depend on it.  The downside of this is that
> > the new upload will have to go through NEW and this may prevent the new
> > package to enter testing before the freeze.  We may postpone this to lenny+1.
> 
> Lenny+1, definitely. 

[pure English, this time :-)]

I am bringing back this issue, because I am planning to implemente it for
3.0.2-4, which will probably be uploaded to experimental.

What name do you prefer for the new arch-indep package?

-- 
Rafael