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

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

On debian-devel, Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es> wrote:
> 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?

libc6-dev is not part of the base system
It is just for developers, it is assumed that if you are developing you have
enough space.
I agree that I think library packages should be split 3 ways so we would have
libc6, libc6-dev and libc6-static, but the bug would be filed aganist policy
not libc6 because it would be policy that would need changing.

> 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.

The good reason to split it is because it is going in base, we want base to be
as small as possible.

I consume, therefore I am

Attachment: pgpk8WrWPjdz4.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: