Re: argument against splitting packages
On Fri, 25 Apr 2014, Paul Gevers wrote:
> The doublecmd-help package [1] of Graham Inggs (who I sponsor a lot),
> is currently building three packages. One package per language that is
> provided by upstream. These packages together add up to 12MB, about
> 4MB per package. Now, if I were a user of one of these packages I
> would appreciate the languages being separated (which means less HD
> space), but as a non-user of the package, it just adds two additional
> packages. So where would a reasonable size limit be?
I would think that anything that saves close to 10M of disk space is
definitely reasonable; more if the package is infrequently installed,
less if it's frequently installed.[1] [I don't know how frequently this
package is used; your and Graham's judgement is probably superior to
mine in this regard.]
Others may have slightly different ideas.
> The other discussion is indeed about packages that are usually found
> together, but also the installed size is ~200MB, so splitting up for
> people that don't need all components could save significant space.
Right.
--
Don Armstrong http://www.donarmstrong.com
For a moment, nothing happened. Then, after a second or so, nothing
continued to happen.
-- Douglas Adams
Reply to: