Re: loginutils package, etc.
'Guy Maor wrote:'
>
>On Tue, 5 Mar 1996, Bruce Perens wrote:
>
>> > miscutils and loginutils will be based on sources taken from several
>> > different packages, among them admutils, util-linux, and bsd.
>>
>> Please do not make any packages that contain sources from more than
>> one upstream package. Please make a separate Debian package for each
>> upstream package. When in doubt, please split packages into smaller
>> ones rather than making big packages. It's a good idea sometimes for
>> a source package to generate several binary packages so that it is
>> easy to subset or replace portions.
The netstd package integrates sources from several upstream sources
quite well, I think. Do you see it as a reasonable model? [My
inclination is to say 'yes'.]
>What's the rationale for this? I'm only taking a fraction of the
>upstream packages. The upstream packages group seemingly unrelated
>programs. miscutils, loginutils, and fsutils, in contrast, group
>related programs together. In a couple of instances, both of these
>packages provide the same program; I'm taking the better one, and
>usually adding my own and others' bug fixes.
>
>You guys don't mind having lots of tiny little packages, then? It
>seems that is much harder to maintain as there are more possible
>combinations that a user could install.
I liked your original proposal. Hats off to you! I don't like lots of
tiny packages with related tools in them. I'm hopeful that you will
take Bruce's suggestions and make an even better proposal!!
Source intergrity is nice. But a well documented 'mess' seems more
expedient (see netstd).
--
Christopher J. Fearnley | UNIX SIG Leader at PACS
cjf@netaxs.com | (Philadelphia Area Computer Society)
http://www.netaxs.com/~cjf | Design Science Revolutionary
ftp://ftp.netaxs.com/people/cjf | Explorer in Universe
"Dare to be Naive" -- Bucky Fuller | Linux Advocate
Reply to: