Re: bogo-1.2-1 released
Bill Mitchell writes ("Re: bogo-1.2-1 released"):
> From a user/installer point of view, it seems unhelpful to combine them.
> It sounds like this would hide theinfo for each small package which would
> be available as Description/Extended description if each was packaged
> separately.
I disagree. I think that with something like this it would be better
to say in the description that the package was a set of miscellaneous
utilities in the application area X and then give a list in the next
paragraph.
Packing these very small program separately doesn't buy us very much -
they're so small that the dpkg per-package overhead is nearly as much
as the files inside them. People probably won't object to installing
a few tens of K of scripts to get the one 3K script they want.
> Also, presuming that it's possible to identify one of the
> included items in the digest package as desired, it sounds like this
> would make it necessary to all the undesired items in the digest
> package to get one which is desired.
Yes, but they're small and inoffensive, so it doesn't matter.
> > I know they're distributed separately as upstream source, but having
> > many of these small packages is really going to clutter up the
> > installation procedure.
>
> That's certainly true, though. More clutter in dselect for the user
> to sort through, more packages to be added to the long list which
> dselect churns through every time it's asked to install a package.
> It's a problem, but this doesn''t sound like an effective solution.
I'm confused. Here you're making my point for me.
If this is more of your file-granularity stuff I don't want to hear
it, I'm afraid.
Ian.
Reply to: