Re: ghi: please review (new package, CLI interface to GitHub issue tracker)
On 27 April 2016 6:16:56 pm IST, Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org> wrote:
>
>by your line of thinking we would be splitting every single application
>in 2 packages (foo and ruby-foo, foo and python-foo, foo and
>libfoo-perl), because every reasonably engineered application has
>library code.
>
>That does not seem reasonable to me. Is anyone adivising people to do
>that?
It is a balance between following standards and common sense. If the package is used mainly as a library, name it ruby-foo. If it is mainly used as an application, name it foo. Outliers, as always, will occur - but in negligible quantities.
As Antonio pointed out, almost all applications with worthy popularity and considerable implementational architecture, probably have a library component.
Splitting packages, that too including the small and trivial ones, doesn't seem reasonable to me too. It's just an additional, unwanted burden for package maintainers.
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Reply to: