On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 03:23 +0000, Tom Jaeger wrote:
> James Westby wrote:
> > Uploaded, thank you.
> >
> > I added a bit more to the changelog so that it was clear what changes were
> > introduced.
> Thank you. There'll be another upload in a couple weeks, should I open
> a new bug for that or reuse this one?
Please open a new bug.
> > I'm interested in why you desired lzma compression for this package?
> Oh, the reason is that I also upload .deb packages to sourceforge for
> users to download, and for some reason, package size matters to some
> people, and the executable is already pretty large due to heavy template
> use. I meant to revert to default compression for the ubuntu package,
> but of course I forgot. I guess it doesn't really make a difference in
> the end.
It's just unusual in packages in Ubuntu, that's why I asked, there's no
real problem with it.
On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 03:23 +0000, Tom Jaeger wrote:
> James Westby wrote:
> > Uploaded, thank you.
> >
> > I added a bit more to the changelog so that it was clear what changes were
> > introduced.
> Thank you. There'll be another upload in a couple weeks, should I open
> a new bug for that or reuse this one?
Please open a new bug.
> > I'm interested in why you desired lzma compression for this package?
> Oh, the reason is that I also upload .deb packages to sourceforge for
> users to download, and for some reason, package size matters to some
> people, and the executable is already pretty large due to heavy template
> use. I meant to revert to default compression for the ubuntu package,
> but of course I forgot. I guess it doesn't really make a difference in
> the end.
It's just unusual in packages in Ubuntu, that's why I asked, there's no
real problem with it.
Thanks,
James