Re: xbase-clients split in the works?
On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 02:10:46PM +0200, Timo Aaltonen wrote:
>
> Howdy
>
> There seem to be three separate bug-reports open about splitting
> xbase-clients up (*). Do you have plans to do so after etch is released?
>
> For historical reasons (which I know nothing about) Ubuntu has had
> separate packages for most of xbase-clients, with the exception of
> xfonts-utils (bdftopcf, font-util, mkfontdir, mkfontscale) and xkbutils
> (setxkbmap, xkbcomp, xkbevd, xkbprint, xkbutils).
>
> Since xorg is modular now, all those components could be separate packages
> (most of which are updated very rarely) and then have meta-packages to
> bundle them up. Meta-packages could use categories like suggested in
> bug 332521. How does that sound?
>
> Sure, that would mean having ~65 more packages to work on, but that would
> make better use of modular X :)
>
>
> *
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=151613
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=199675
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=332521
At some point, yes, but I need to figure out a way to do it. To be honest,
it's a pretty low priority because these apps are rarely updated and the
modularization already solved the problem of making users re-download these
programs needlessly over and over again.
I rejected the Ubuntu method of having every single app split out in to its
own package because, to be honest, that's insane and creates archive bloat
and more work for our ftpmasters who are already overloaded with more
important requests. xprop and xinit, for example, do not need their own
packages, although things like xcalc and xedit could definitely be split
off in to a non-necessary apps package.
Since 7.2 is mostly ready in experimental thanks to Julien's work, perhaps
we can work on this a little bit, although I'm not sure that there's any
significant benefit to our users.
If you want to clone our git repo and do the split yourself, and put the
split repo up somewhere that we can look at it, you're welcome to do so. If
it's good, we'll pull your version and use it.
- David Nusinow
Reply to: