Re: are lsm files worth putting in binary package?
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I think that though they do not *need* to be included (that
> is, including them is not a requirement), they do contain things
> which maybe important, son including them is not necesarilly a bug,
> or at least not en masse.
Ok. I don't think this is very importany anyway..
> I'd leave it to the maintainers to decide whether it is useful
> to include them. They are rather small, and they do sometimes contain
> details and meta-data about the package which are useful.
However, the point of my original posting about this is that I can't find
any information in lsm files that isn't duplicates in the the Packages file
and the copyright files. Do you have any examples?
--
see shy jo
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: