Re: please advice package names for padre plugins
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Damyan Ivanov <email@example.com> wrote:
> -=| Jonathan Yu, Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 09:01:30AM -0400 |=-
>> Or perhaps have a virtual padre-plugins package. :-) [This is the sort
>> of thing that seems to be happening with catalyst-modules,
>> perl-modules, etc]
> catalyst-modules and perl-modules aren't virtual packages.
> libcatalyst-modules-perl is a Debian-native package containing
> multiple upstream tarballs. perl-modules is a binary package made from
> perl source package.
> We considered with Ryan creating a "conglomerate" padre-plugins
> package the same way libcatalyst-modules-perl is done and decided that
> one-size-fits-all is not good. Some people need Svn support, other
> — Git; some want Vi, others — Emacs. Given that the set of plugins
> will grow with time, this shall become more and more evident.
I think the same could be said about Catalyst. But, point taken. Not
all people need X module that is in the bundle.
On the other hand, I don't see how it can hurt to have a virtual
"padre-plugins" package to install everything available; and allow
users to install the individual modules if they so decide. This was
along the lines of what Gabor was suggesting, with a padre-all
"bundle" of convenient stuff.
And I think in general, the Padre plugins aren't large enough that it
really even matters if you install everything at once. Isn't that
essentially the rationale behind libcatalyst-modules-perl? (I really
have no idea here).
Anyway, I'm fine whatever way you go, but to make my intentions clear,
I think it's worth considering a virtual package to install them all.
That's the real idea I'd promote (and not so much the single
monolithic package with all of the modules as with Catalyst)
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----