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

[Thomas Weber]

Am Freitag, den 12.09.2008, 11:34 +0200 schrieb 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?

octave3.X-common?

	Thomas