Re: Number of Debian packages [was Re: iMatix Open Source software]
Christian Meder <meder@isr.uni-stuttgart.de> writes:
> On Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 10:14:45AM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> > Before packaging them, I suggest to look at alternatives. The
> > number of packages in potato increases in a frightening way (yes,
> > I know it's partly my fault).
> Did we ever intend to restrict the number of packages in Debian ?
> If we've got 8 httpd packages I see, except for license or technical
> (e.g. security) issues, no reasons why we shouldn't allow more
> httpds in the distribution ? Debian was always about choice and as
> long as somebody is properly maintaining the packages I don't think
> we should change.
I don't have any problem with the number of packages in Debian, and my
system takes quite some time to search, list, install and remove them,
I can assure you. ;)
In fact, I was discussing this with a RedHat user over dinner
recently, and came to the opinion that one of the reasons Debian is
doing better is that nearly everything a user can see on Freshmeat has
been packaged, or will be shortly. This means we don't *have* a
contrib section like RedHat does---there are a few places offering
third-party .debs, but usually these people are maintainers anyway
(Jim Pick springs to mind), and it shows.
What *could* be convenient would be to make each Section: of the
archive aptable. If I'm never going to install (say) a game or a math
app (for, say a fileserver) it could be convenient to be able to not
specify it in my sources.list and ignore those sections completely.
jason `even the smallest application is probably worth packaging'
parker
--
____ Every once in a while, you catch a memory leak, /"\ ASCII ribbon
\ _/__ realise that the operating system hasn't crashed, \ / campaign
\X / and you get this warm, shit-eating grin for the X against HTML
\/ next hundred lines of code. -- Dave Taylor / \ email
Reply to: