Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478470 --- Comment #26 from Jose Luis <joseluisblancoc@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-02-16 15:20:24 EDT --- (In reply to comment #25) > Well, would you explain why you want to split each binaries into > different subpackages? I don't think people using mrpt can get > much gain , and the naming of subpackages seems confusing because > from the first look some subpackages have names which don't seem > to be related to mrpt. Honestly, I wasn't unsure about this split. On the one hand, I do see a gain as many people will not use all mrpt programs, so they can install what I guess are the most useful ones. Each subpackage carries its own executable, plus a subdirectory in /share/ with sample script/configuration files, so I also see a good thing that only those files of the programs of interest are installed. OTOH, I have to admit that the package namespace is messed up with this change, while there's not a huge gain in disk space. If your final opinion is to leave all programs in mrpt-apps, I would see that fine. In that case, I might also join "mrpt-example-datasets" back into "mrpt-apps" as it was in the beginning. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review