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

Re: Bug#433143: ITP: bzr-rebase -- Rebase plugin for Bazaar

On Mon, 2007-07-16 at 00:28 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 10:48:14PM +0200, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> > > Any good reason for this being a separate package instead of becoming
> > > part of bzrtools?
> > Yes, it's a different upstream package.
> I was indeed too cryptic, sorry, let me explain.
> I don't want to see a bzr-foo package in the archive for each .py module
> available on the internet which provides yet another sub-command for
> bzr. I asked under the (wrong) assumption that bzrtools was a Debian
> package shipping in a single Debian package several bzr addons. Under
> that assumption it seemed reasonable to avoid creating a new package,
> bug including your new addons as part of it.
Just for clarity: rebase is 7 py files. I do understand now what your point was, though.

> Since my assumption was wrong: what about creating a "bzr-addons" Debian
> package containing the most used bzr addons out there instead of filing
> an ITP for just one?
At the moment, there is only one small bzr plugins packaged: bzr-email,
which is has under 10 .py files as well. The other plugins for Bazaar
that are packaged are relatively large:

 * bzr-gtk: 52 py files
 * bzrtools: 39 py files
 * bzr-svn: 41 py files
 * bzr-builddeb: 17 py files

and so I think deserve their own package. 

This means that we would end up with just two relatively small packages
for bzr-email and bzr-rebase, which I think isn't too bad. If this gets
out of hand and we end up with a too high number of packages that each
contain a couple of .py files then I think we should reconsider at that
point. By that time, tracking and packaging all the individual plugins
probably would've become a problem anyway.



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: