Re: #38544: Gettext solution (Was: Re: gettext packages)

[Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>]

On Wed, 2 Jun 1999, Julian Gilbey wrote:

> > I for one do not think it is wise to convert every /bin/sh script into
> > /bin/bash just for make it i18n.
> > 
> > Remember that there are a lot of people who likes to make /bin/sh
> > a symlink to ash (which aims for POSIX compliance). If we start making
> > a lot of shell scripts /bin/bash, even if bash is currently essential,
> > we will lose the benefits given by a smaller shell as /bin/sh.
> 
> That's a very good point.

Thanks.

> In which case, let's aim to split the gettext package ;)

Well, you are the only one to insist so much in splitting the gettext
package. The reason you give me for this is that there are some stuff
which is normally not needed by the average user. I agree with that, but
IMHO, this is not a good reason for the split.

The same could be said for much larger packages than gettext.

Example: libc6-dev contains both the include files and the static
libraries. I guess that the include files are used by almost everybody
who has this package installed, while I could not say the same for the
static libraries.

Does this mean that libc6-dev has to be splitted also? (Please look at the
installed size of libc6-dev, and compare it with the installed size of
gettext).

Thanks.

-- 
 "f02f06b0c6940a73250cc10cd66ca369" (a truly random sig)