[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: very small packages - merge into general/miscelleneous or move into
From: |
Thomas Weber |
Subject: |
Re: very small packages - merge into general/miscelleneous or move into core |
Date: |
Thu, 23 Jan 2014 13:34:15 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 03:13:50PM +0100, c. wrote:
> > the other I don't remember. The change in value I do
> > not remember - it doesn't matter however. I am not an expert in whatever
> > domain the constants are used, so I assume that every change might be
> > important to someone working in a specific domain.
>
> That's why I whish Debian packagers would let pkg.m work
> so Octave users could just decide for themselves.
We share that wish. Have you a fix for
http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?32049 ?
> > My thinking was more like: does it make a difference if we continue with
> > the old package - and yes, it did. So out it went.
>
> Let's pretend the Avogadro constant had indeed been changed.
>
> Now the same function wth the same error is in the package "general".
> Are you packaging "general" in Debian?
> Do you think it should be kicked out because physical_constant is buggy?
There is a difference between a package that is completely buggy and a
function in a bigger package that is buggy. If there is a buggy function
in Octave, would you consider Octave useless? Probably not. If you
couldn't expect a single output from Octave to be "correct", would you
still use it?
Thomas
- Re: very small packages - merge into general/miscelleneous or move into core, (continued)
- Re: very small packages - merge into general/miscelleneous or move into core, c., 2014/01/17
- Re: very small packages - merge into general/miscelleneous or move into core, Carnë Draug, 2014/01/17
- Re: very small packages - merge into general/miscelleneous or move into core, c., 2014/01/17
- Re: very small packages - merge into general/miscelleneous or move into core, Thomas Weber, 2014/01/17
- Message not available
- Re: very small packages - merge into general/miscelleneous or move into core, Carlo de Falco, 2014/01/17
- Re: very small packages - merge into general/miscelleneous or move into core, Thomas Weber, 2014/01/22
- Re: very small packages - merge into general/miscelleneous or move into core, Marco Atzeri, 2014/01/22
- Re: very small packages - merge into general/miscelleneous or move into core, c., 2014/01/22
- Re: very small packages - merge into general/miscelleneous or move into core, c., 2014/01/22
- Re: very small packages - merge into general/miscelleneous or move into core, c., 2014/01/22
- Re: very small packages - merge into general/miscelleneous or move into core,
Thomas Weber <=
- Re: very small packages - merge into general/miscelleneous or move into core, c., 2014/01/23
- Re: very small packages - merge into general/miscelleneous or move into core, Thomas Weber, 2014/01/23
- Re: very small packages - merge into general/miscelleneous or move into core, c., 2014/01/24
- Re: very small packages - merge into general/miscelleneous or move into core, c., 2014/01/24
- Message not available
- Re: very small packages - merge into general/miscelleneous or move into core, c., 2014/01/27
- Message not available
- Re: very small packages - merge into general/miscelleneous or move into core, c., 2014/01/27
- Re: very small packages - merge into general/miscelleneous or move into core, Olaf Till, 2014/01/27
- Re: very small packages - merge into general/miscelleneous or move into core, c., 2014/01/27
- Re: very small packages - merge into general/miscelleneous or move into core, c., 2014/01/27
- Re: very small packages - merge into general/miscelleneous or move into core, Olaf Till, 2014/01/27