Re: loginutils package, etc.
Guy Maor <maor@ece.utexas.edu> said:
Fewer packages are less confusing for the user.
Only for the base and standard.
Beyond those the rest of the system is a matter of local
configuration. Package overload is a matter of perception and can
certainly be altered. As debian starts to mature there will be a need
for pseudo-mega-packages or "suites" that can be defined to dpkg.
These suites will define common installation scenarios for users that
expect their machine to be "X Workstations" or "ISP Clients".
This packaging perception is why there are specialty redistributions
of slackware like mini-linux and xdenu.
The beginner doesn't know the difference between the complexity of
debian and that of Unix. Is that what you are basing this on?
Are you comparing the number of debian packages to another distribution?
Fewer packages create fewer package permuations, a obvious benefit
for the maintainers.
The discussion was whether to put the permutations inside the package
by having more than one upstream package in a debian package or have
more debian packages. Mixing upstream packages into one debian
package is an obvious hinderance for the maintainers.
An extremist might argue that *all* the base packages should be put
together in one megapackage, 'base'. Of course that is incredibly
impractical. A new 'base' package would come out daily and would take
an eon to download.
Not so impractical.
Such a package is already made and split across the base disks.
You could have it both ways if it were shown to be important.
Isn't the standard install that dselect offers the next "megapackage"
up after the base? In the words of a certain lawyer in film, "explain
this to me like I'm a 5 year old." (Sometimes I feel like I am ;-)
I'd like to explore this megapackage idea.
Costa
Reply to: