[Pkg-octave-devel] [RFU] octave-interval 1.2.0-1

[Oliver Heimlich]

On 07.10.2015 23:02, Sébastien Villemot wrote:
> Le mercredi 07 octobre 2015 à 22:49 +0200, Oliver Heimlich a écrit :
>> On 07.10.2015 22:43, Sébastien Villemot wrote:
> 
>>> - is the separation in two packages really necessary? My
>>> understanding
>>> is that separating arch-indep files is only warranted for big
>>> packages,
>>> because it saves space on the Debian ftp servers. In the present
>>> case,
>>> given that the package is small, I don't think that the overhead
>>> created by a separate -common package is warranted. I think it just
>>> adds complexity for no benefit. Or am I missing something?
>>
>> It's absolutely fine to have a single package and this is also easier
>> because you do not have the dependency trouble between the two (one
>> would never use one without the other).
>>
>> The only benefit would be to save some bytes, because the arch-dep
>> part
>> would be small. AFAIK, there is no other reason to separate the two.
> 
> Since you are the maintainer, and since the Debian policy does not make
> an imperative prescription in this area, you are free to decide whether
> to have two packages or one.
> 
> But if I were you, I would go for just one package in the present case.

Simplicity rules. I have made it a single package. Local rebuilding and
testing was successful.

I have also added the missing copyright stanza for debian/*. The changes
have been pushed to the git repo.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-octave-devel/attachments/20151007/4c38a364/attachment.sig>