Re: what about a camlp{4,5}-misc package ...
On 18-10-2007, Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 09:26:24AM +0000, Sylvain Le Gall wrote:
>> IMHO, i would prefer having a lot of small packages that can be updated
>> independently (i.e. one package per extension). Maybe you can consider
>> that those extensions will be "Arch: all" and will only add 1 package and
>> no buildd load...=20
>
> I don't want to carry the load of having several extension packages when
> the extensions are small. I think it's unlikely that we will have a
> package for the various extensions I mentioned in the wiki page; at
> least I don't think I will take the steps to create the various packages
> (but frankly I don't think anyone else will).
>
> On the contrary I think I will be happy to work, once, in creating the
> aggregate package. That's it.
>
> I agree with the perplexities of multi-source Debian packages in
> general, but I do believe they make sense for small pieces of software
> and we have plenty of examples in the archive; I myself are maintaining
> vim-addons for example. Note that the case of ocamlmakefile was quite
> peculiar in this respect, since it's a package on which a lot of
> packages can build depend.
>
Classical discussion about this topic (1 big package or a lot of small
one). It is only a matter of taste, so i have nothing against this.
Next step, is to understand how you can integrate it in a META file (you
can, but will it be mandatory) ?
Regards,
Sylvain Le Gall
Reply to: