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

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

> 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).

It's not such a stupid suggestion, perhaps.  But what does one package
which might need to be broken have to do with another?

Anyway, I might pursue my intent to find a clean way to split the
gettext package when I have some time.



  Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, QMW, Univ. of London. J.D.Gilbey@qmw.ac.uk
        Debian GNU/Linux Developer,  see http://www.debian.org/~jdg

Reply to: