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:
pgpzlf9cUnwz4.pgp
Description: PGP signature