Re: loginutils package, etc.
On Thu, 7 Mar 1996, CD Rasmussen wrote:
> Doesn't it make more sense to have install software run longer than
> to risk humans getting confused by how the recipe for a package goes
> together?
A longer installation is not the only disadvantage, not even the most
important one, of having fewer packages.
Fewer packages are less confusing for the user. Fewer packages create
fewer package permuations, a obvious benefit for the maintainers.
An extremist might argue that *all* the base packages should be put
together in one megapackage, 'base'. Of course that is incredibly
impractical. A new 'base' package would come out daily and would take
an eon to download.
So where do we draw the line between one megapackage and thousands of
micropackages? Convenience to the user should be our prime goal. We
should package programs together which are likely to be upgraded
together.
My new package fsutils is an excellent example. I proposed to put
fsck.minix, mkfs, mkfs.minix, mkswap, fdisk, and cfdisk in one
package. Bruce pointed out that fdisk and cfdisk are slated for
frequent updates in the near future as fdisk3.0 becomes widely used.
The other programs, on the other hand, rarely change. Obviously I
should split this package in two - fsutils and fdisk.
Regarding miscutils, loginutils, et al.: Obviously I do agree with much
of the advice I've gotten. I'll release a new package restructuring by
tomorrow.
Guy
Reply to: