[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Planning new virtual packages for hamm

Brian White writes:
 > Off hand, I don't think it would be worth creating a seperate package
 > just for "debugfs".  I think there is a point where making the granularity
 > any finer doesn't really accomplish anything.
 > Would breaking out libss and debugfs accomplish enough to be worth the
 > trouble?

That's not only for debugfs.

Separating an e2fsprogs-base from e2fsprogs would allow boot-floppies
guys to get some more place on them.  I somehow discussed this with
Enrique, and he ack'ed my list of candidate binaries for
e2fsprogs-base, but that was only after the freeze...

 > I'm not really informed enough about these packages to make judgements
 > on this.  Wanting to be able to interchange other libraries is a good
 > arguement for the split.  It may be possible to include other libraries
 > into the existing monolithic package, much as (I believe) netbase includes
 > many little packages in one.

I'm not really sure I understand what you're saying here... could you
please reword ?
Yann Dirson  <ydirson@a2points.com>      | Stop making M$-Bill richer & richer,
alt-email:     <dirson@univ-mlv.fr>      |     support Debian GNU/Linux:
debian-email:   <dirson@debian.org>      |         more powerful, more stable !
http://www.a2points.com/homepage/3475232 | Check <http://www.debian.org/>

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: