Re: xlib6g now depends on xfree86-common (?)
On Tue, Feb 09, 1999 at 07:11:34PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Feb 09, 1999 at 04:44:44PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> >
> > > It has come to my attention that the new xlib6g base now depends on
> > > xfree86-common.
> > >
> > > I think this dependency is artificial, because of two reasons:
> >
> > Santiago, I really hope you are not proposing to remove that dependency.
> > Did you take a look at xfree86-common's filelist?
> >
> > * A bunch of directories. Some programs don't work if those directories
> > doesn't exist. Which programs? The programs that depend on xlib6g.
>
> This is the point.
>
> Do you guarantee that *every* program will break if those directories do
> not exist?
>
> If there is a single program that does not break, the dependency is
> artificial and we should allow every package to depend on xfree86-common,
> on xlib6g, or both, in an independent fashion.
>
That is probably one of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard. I don't
think it's gonna kill anyone to install xfree86-common. Look at what you are
saying. Do you think people are gonna get pissed cause they have to install
a measly 100k package? No. However, I can see plenty of people being angry
because some random X app doesn't work because some directories are missing.
Now you say we could just make all the packages depend on xfree86-common,
are you crazy or do you just want to make everyones job that much harder?
> If every program breaks, then why two different packages?
> Just merge xfree86-common and xlib6g into xfree86-common.
>
> > [...]
> > (The other solution is to merge xfree86-common back in xlib6g, where it
> > lived for a long time, but why do that? You have a very nice binary-all
> > pacakge there)
>
> Fine. *This* is a valid point (glad that you mentioned it).
>
> Splitting an existing package into a binary-all and a binary-<arch>
> is something useful when the binary-all package is big enough.
>
> [ xfree86-common is 114612 bytes long. xlib6g is 943382 bytes long,
> if the X maintainer says it is worth to split, I accept it ].
>
> If this is the reason for the split, could we have it please
> written in xfree86-common's README?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> --
> "c0a8c0e79e4d0fb09b776b8c861fd8d3" (a truly random sig)
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
>
--
/-----------------------------------------------------------\
|Stephen Crowley stephenc@wf.net, crow@debian.org |
|Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org |
|GPG Key http://va.debain.org/~crow/public.key |
\--- 8A8B 3B82 6EA7 CF4E 01A5 5B21 B378 981D D2E1 0D85 ----/
Reply to: