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

Re: search-citeseer_0.1-1_i386.changes REJECTED



On 16-Oct-03, 13:11 (CDT), Otavio Salvador <otavio@debian.org> wrote: 
> Yes but to my sense is really better to enduser have this packages
> splited since the search-citeseer can work (without problems) without
> the -el part and I want provide this option for our users.

My sense is exactly the opposite: people who don't use the -el will not
be inconvenienced by a few Kb of extra files, but those who want them
will have to go through extra effort to get them, after figuring out
why part of the upstream package is missing. And _everyone_ will have a
fractionally larger Packages file to download, and yet another package
item in whatever browser tool they use, cluttering searches.

And forget the "It's not in Policy" argument. Policy doesn't say "don't
put 'rm -rf /' in the postinst" either, but that doesn't make it a good
thing to do. Policy doesn't say "The minimum package size is N bytes",
because that doesn't make any sense - a package is as big as it needs to
be. Policy is intended to be a minimal document, the least that we need
to regulate to make a coherent integrated system. 

Glancing at a even few of the core packages should convince you that it
is not general practice to split upstream packages into the smallest
possible subsets. Everyone who has replied to your question (as of this
writing) has said it's a bad idea to split a package this small. If you
honestly wanted our opinions, this consistent response should be enough
to make you reconsider. If you were expecting a universal "Oh, that evil
James Troup, he's a power mad dictator" response, well, sorry, that's a
different thread, and a different topic.

Steve

-- 
Steve Greenland
    The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
    system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
    world.       -- seen on the net



Reply to: