Re: less packages [was Re: From debianplanet]
On Mon, 2002-01-28 at 16:26, Will Lowe wrote:
> > Personally, I'd say fewer packages could be a good thing. A great thing,
> > even.
> Depends on what you mean by "fewer". If you mean "find ones nobody's
> maintainging properly and axe them", I'd agree. If you mean
> "eliminate redundancy", I'd disagree -- I value the fact that Debian
> has 18 versions of /usr/bin/vi!
Yes, but having to handle each of these 18, fix bugs in them them, and
let the obsure, 3 user version of vi hold up/slow down the release of
Woody is retarded.
The one, single (ok, two, tops) most used vi packages (vim and one of
the lean vi's, maybe) should be all that's in Debian - as in all that is
put on the CD's. The extra packages could be left *only* on the FTP
servers/mirrors for apt-get, or perhaps publish some extra CDs with
these packages - but do it so that at the time of release, any extra
packages are simply dropped if they don't work. There is no reason why
a bug in Joe Bob's Vi Wanna-Be should slow down Woody at all.
The same goes, of course, for many other packages. How many hotplug
packages do we have in Debian? Just the most used/most featureful/least
buggy should be included in Debian. Any others should be extras,
non-essential to the system, released on "Extras" CD's, and so on.
Obscure Hotplug Version 0.2 shouldn't slow down Debian, either.
I know Debian does something similar with the CD layout now, but it
could be improved further. The true "base" CD's of Debian could be
greatly reduced (1 or 2), the 5 or 6 extra CD's would be totally
optional, and a fully working desktop/server should be possible without
using any extras CD's.
hile having fewer packages won't magically make releases super simple,
quick, or stable, it seems as tho it may help. Getting some 8000
packages into shape for Woody has to be *some* part of the hold up, no?
> -- thanks,
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org