Le mardi 29 août 2006 à 23:03 +0200, Loïc Minier a écrit : > I don't like that very much, random points: > 1) these transitions are a lot of work I don't think so. > 2) not a gain until the next stable release because of the partial > upgrade guarantee which forces us to have compatibility deps which > pull everything This isn't true either. For example, the python-gnome2 needs to depend on all other packages anyway. On the other side, some packages may benefit from the split immediately by reducing their dependencies. > 3) python-gnomish build-deps and deps are hard to get right already > (just found a new missing dep today on a package which I had > carefully reviewed for sponsoring multiple times already) > 4) because there's no clean mechanism for upstream to express runtime > deps, some upstreams use build time checks for runtime dependencies, > these might break too because of the split; the one to one mapping > between binary packages and upstream modules is a good thing until > this problem is addressed > 5) these packages are aimed at machines where GNOME and Python are > installed, do these need the space saving? Well, this was asked, probably because there are popular python-gnome applications that people want to install without GNOME. > BTW, there's also python-gnome2-desktop, if you go for a split, you > might want to split this one as well. Now *this* one looks like a lot of work. Anyway, it isn't necessarily better to split out everything. The most problematic one may be gconf, which is used by many others while bonobo and gnome, for example, are not. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette /\./\ : :' : josselin.mouette@ens-lyon.org `. `' joss@debian.org `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=