Re: #38544: Gettext solution (Was: Re: gettext packages)
On Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 04:01:16PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > It's not such a stupid suggestion, perhaps. But what does one package
> > which might need to be broken have to do with another?
> I has to do a lot: If we split gettext because it contains things which
> are useful for different kind of people (users and developers), and we
> do this based on the size of the package, then we should do the same for
> every package having the same size to be consistent. However, we do not
> split packages for the sake of splitting. It has to be a real gain.
> Why don't you report "this package should be splitted because it is
> too large and contains things which are not normally useful" as a bug
> against libc6-dev?
Because it is not itching him. He probably does not care about the 3.3MB the
static libraries are taking. Also I think it would be a good idea to split
this beast - about 8MB for the basic development package? *arg*
> > Anyway, I might pursue my intent to find a clean way to split the
> > gettext package when I have some time.
> Even if you find a "clean" way to split it, I think a good reason to
> split it is still needed. Just because you think it must be split
> does not make it a bug. It would be more productive to clearly state
> the reasons why gettext "must" to be split while libc6-dev has not
> before looking the way to split it.
It should fit into the base system. Nobody needs libc6-dev there but gettext
would be really nice...