rpms/gnumeric/FC-4 gnumeric.spec,1.3,1.4

[Michael Schwendt]

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 15:04:25 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:

> Le lundi 24 octobre 2005 à 14:04 +0200, Michael Schwendt a écrit :
> > On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 13:07:02 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > 
> > > Le lundi 24 octobre 2005 à 12:28 +0200, Michael Schwendt a écrit :
> > > 
> > > > Well, I prefer semantic correctness of dependencies
> > > 
> > > Michael, semantic correctness is worth nothing to the people who
> > > actually use the packages. A working system is. Plus you can not
> > > advocate correctness on the points you care about, and ignore it on the
> > > points you don't.
> > >
> > > I'll also point out there are not so many software bits like gnumeric
> > > dating from Miguel's time, so if you won't do the mc directory dep for
> > > gnumeric you won't do it anywhere else, and twin ownership of this dir
> > > is more than acceptable practically.
> > 
> > gnumeric not requiring mc _just works_. gnumeric requiring mc causes users
> > to raise questions about dependency bloat. gnumeric owning a directory
> > which belongs to a different package, is wrong. 
> 
> But *works*.
> The problem with all your arguments is you mingle absolutes
> "correctness", "wrong" with practical considerations "works", "bloat".
> Choose your ground (ideal or practical) and stick to it. If you want to
> push absolutes, you can't invoke practical considerations. If you accept
> practicalities, you can't ignore them because of absolutes.

Thread closed for me since you've reached a certain point where you're
only trying to attack me personally. I am not interested in wasting time
on this. I've made my points clear. Contact the people who do actual
packaging policies. That's not me. I only have views of what's good and
what's not. You are free to ignore advise as I keep disagreeing with
things like:

$ rpm -qf /usr/share/xemacs
fedora-rpmdevtools-1.2-1.fc5