Re: Packaging WM themes - question
>>>>> On Thu, 24 May 2001 20:23:35 -0500, Ben Burton <benb@acm.org>
>>>>> said:
Ben> Options are (1) release one huge-arse binary package; (2) release
Ben> 39 packages, one for each theme; (3) release a moderate number of
Ben> packages each containing a few themes.
Ben> I am hesitant to do (1) because of the user's disk space usage.
Ben> I am hesitant to do (2) because I'm not sure that debian wants a
Ben> million kde-theme-* packages on its servers.
Rob Walker (rob@myinternetplace.net) responded:
> > I like (2).
> >
> > what's another 40 packages?
neuffer@sciobyte.de (Michael Neuffer) emphatically replied:
> Exactly this brain damaged behavior is why we have
> so many (useless mini)packages !
I agree with this complaint. Although some contributors to this list
would disagree (mostly because they live in their own world without much
concern for what other people think), these little packages are causing
problems with installation and management of Debian systems.
Anyone who has attempted to perform a good installation of Debian for a
novice must have come across this annoyance. Once the base system has
been installed, one must wade through screen after screen (of what
is mostly useless crap) to pick out the few useful packages that one
wants. I have found this a tricky and tedious task -- and I have almost
six years of experience with Debian -- which is becoming more difficult
each year.
Finally, while task packages might ease somewhat the chore of package
selection (this is arguable), they do almost nothing to fix the problems
caused by these mini-packages.
[...]
> Go, ask some of the other old-timers on debian-devel that still
> remember the old flamewars with Bruce where this was a topic as well,
> what they think.
This is true. Ian Jackson used to refer to this phenomenon as "package
fragmentation," and he noticed it early on. As I recall, he complained
when I tried to pull GNU mt out of cpio and into its own package. After
considering his arguments, I realized that he was right, and GNU mt is
still packaged with cpio.
> Ben: It might make sense to split it into 2 or 3 packages but
> certainly not more.
I agree. Consider the following when making these decisions:
(1) Does the entire set of software come from one source?
(2) Is the entire upstream source packaged and updated together?
(3) Does everything work together or provide the same utility or
service?
If the answer to all of the above questions is "yes," then everything
should be placed in one package.
- Brian
Reply to: