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
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 <email@example.com> | Stop making M$-Bill richer & richer,
alt-email: <firstname.lastname@example.org> | support Debian GNU/Linux:
debian-email: <email@example.com> | more powerful, more stable !
http://www.a2points.com/homepage/3475232 | Check <http://www.debian.org/>
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com