schoenfeld / in-medias-res <schoenfeld@in-medias-res.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 09:37:37PM +0200, markus schnalke wrote: > > genwebgallery is written in sh, without bashism. > > please don't get me wrong, but your script (regardless of weither its > good in what it does) is (including comments) 260 lines long. I wonder > if that size really qualifies for an own package. Did you check if your > software could be included in another package? I haven't checked it > properly, but eventually 'debian-goodies' would be a candidate. > If you think it justifies to be a package on its own, why do you think > so? IANADD but it could enhance your chances to find a sponsor if you > give a statement on that:-) It's an interesting point you have. In contrast, I would say: Why are there so many large packages with lots of dependencies. Why dont spit them to make them small and simple? I know, it's not that easy. :-) But what I want to say is, that I think packages should be small and simple. This is the way to have less bugs and better customizable setups. You probably read, that I work on a small image resizing program. The reason is, that `imagemagick' as well as `graphicsmagick' are far to large packages when I only want some image resizing. (I had to install 80MB for `imagemagick' on a fresh base installation!) I think it would be better if ImageMagick would be a few separate programs, and a virtual package that depends on all of them. Just like it was done with OOo some time ago. But I know, that it's not so easy to split program suites up. What there should be, are small alternatives to ImageMagick and GraphicsMagick, with only some of it's features. Cause I haven't found them, I work on programming one. But back to `genwebgallery': I think packages should be like programs according to the Unix philosophy: - small and simple - do one thing well That's why `genwebgallery' is like it is. Anyway: If someone has good suggestions, please tell me. meillo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature