> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Rahul Sundaram <metherid@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: >>Â Otherwise, Â make >> ddate a sub package and don't install it by default. Â Solved? > > As an upstream the willingness of distributions to strip out commands > which I wanted to provide and don't offer a build option to disable > via sub-packaging will simply encourage me to pack more functionality > into single binaries that the distributions won't strip. > > So I think Fedora shouldn't be more willing to strip ddate than it > would be willing to patch out ddate functionality if it were embedded > in 'hwclock'. > > There is a reasonable argument that util-linux ought to go on a diet: > Right now it appears to take up 6424k on disk. > > (Though, most of that is localizationsâ?? and several of the various > NEWS/readme files it includes are bigger than ddate, as is its copy of > the GPL. This silly thread has probably taken up more disk space than > ddate, or it soon will) I think it has. :) > -- > devel mailing list > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > -- in your fear, seek only peace in your fear, seek only love -d. bowie -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
