Re: RFS: qastools

["Sebastian H." <vand2@gmx.de>]

>>> So? It's difficult for me to get your point when you're asking questions
>>> without making any statement. I'd be grateful if you could clarify.
>>
>> Depending on the answers, my statements would be different. In general,
>> I see to 'primary' reasons for a package split in a package with kind of
>> related utilities:
>>
>> 1) Some of the utilities are real big
>> 2) Some of the utilities has real big dependencies
>>
>> Each package split does also come with a overhead.
>>
>> And I think based on your answer, the qastools splitting doesn't fully
>> make sense.
> 
> Except in this case they are already split (qasconfig and qasmixer are
> already in Debian); so what we're talking about is whether it makes
> sense to put them together now.
> 
> Looking at popcon for qasconfig and qasmixer, it seems that a fair
> amount of users only have one of the packages installed (83 vs. 128
> users, respectively), so in my view it's a good idea to keep them
> separated, so that the users who chose not to install both packages
> still have that possibility.

I'm favor of splitting into per-application packages, too.

IMO from an end user perspective it's nicer to be able to pick just the
applications you need.
Also QasMixer is probably the most useful application in this
collection. A quick search for the term "mixer" wouldn't reveal it
in case of a single qastools package.


Sebastian