-=| Don Armstrong, Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 04:56:21PM -0700 |=- > On Tue, 09 Jun 2009, Xavier Oswald wrote: > > On 22:10 Mon 08 Jun , Nathan Handler wrote: > > > I recently packaged libacme-bleach-perl [1]. > > > > Well, My point of view is that you could ask upstream to do 3 tarballs and > > separate them. And if upstream don't want to do that, keep all 3 modules in one > > package. They are not big so it's not annoying having them shared in one > > package. > > Especially because we're talking about ACME modules here, there's > little point in separating them out. Just have them all in a single > package which Provides the other three as appropriate. [Furthermore, > these particular ACME modules *are* rather related, as they are all > source parsing modules.] I second this. Put them in one package (named after the CPAN dist) and provide each if needed. The problem with splitting too many small binary packages is that the archive package lists become larger for no real benefit. Processing them is a burden on low-end (or embedded) hardware already. See http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-perl-maintainers/2008-December/017000.html and http://bugs.debian.org/511069 Splitting would have been in order if the modules are large and are seldomly needed all together (i.e. it is normal to use only one of them without needing the others). > I'd even question why we're distributing them in the first place... > though they are kind of amusing. A note to the ITP (#532034) explaining why this package is good for users would have helped address this question. -- dam
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature