Re: Incoming directory status
On Fri, 10 May 1996, David Engel wrote:
> Please don't do this. Our packaging is already getting too granular
> as it is. IMO, we should not continue the practice of giving every
> alternative package equal status. Whenever possible, we should try to
> standardize on one package and have the other packages deal with it
> accordingly. For example, in this case, xemacs can either depend on
> emacs to get etags, etc., or use dpkg-divert to selectively override
> them with its own versions.
Errr... I think on the contrary that we should try to give competing
packages (like xemacs and emacs) as equal a status as possible. For
non-base packages, the choice of 'which package is better' should be each
user's to make. People won't really care if the stuff is implemented behind
the scene using diversions or using a 'common' package... But someone who
likes xemacs and not 'plain' emacs shouldn't have to fetch the latter
before they can install the former cleanly. (esp for emacs/xemacs, which
are >5MB each.)
But in the case of [ec]tags... they seem to be begging for their own
package:
1. emacs, xemacs, elvis (and vim too??) all include '?tags' programs.
2. Many users don't use [ec]tags... That's certainly true of at least all
the people who "don't do C"!
And I think the current granularity is just fine... Meaning that (except
for base packages) people don't have to install programs they don't
use/need. And dselect already caters to people who 'want less
granularity'. They just install 'all standard packages' or 'all optional
development packages'. It's easy to offer 'less granularity' when you have
more... The opposite is just about impossible.
Christian
PS Hopefully I'm not repeating myself too much... Seems like I tend to
ramble a bit after midnight. :-)
Reply to: