Re: Bug#119517: pcmcia-cs: cardinfo binary needs to move into a separate package
On Sat, Nov 17, 2001 at 09:09:28PM +0900, Taketoshi Sano wrote:
> > 1) Ensure that no program is installed in a state in which it can fail
> > due to missing components, whether they are shared libraries required
> > by the program, missing data, or other programs that are used by the
> > scripts or programs in the package. IMO, this leads to excessive
> > dependencies, since all packages will need to use "Depends" unless
> > the dependency is truly external and superficial. Many packages will
> > need to be split into tiny sub-packages to keep these dependencies
> > manageable.
>
> If this is the way to go, then there may be users who object to have
> extra (unnecessary for them) packages installed on their system.
We should not listen to such objections unless they are reasonable.
Reasonable means that the overhead is significant, and the split up in
multiple components is easy enough to do.
Debian is a general purpose distribution, this also means that we have to
compromise a bit here and there. Hidden dependencies are a nuisance to
system administrators on multi-user systems, for example. Personally, they
would also be a nuisance for me on my desktop system.
Some programs allow modularity at the level that some components may be
missing and the program will still work (and provide diagnostics if pieces
are missing). Such programs might be split up at a finer level than a
program that doesn't.
After all, it boils down to be a situation that needs to be judged in each
case individually. I think my main point is that the "split it up at a very
fine level" is not what every type of user would expect. The pendulum
should not swing out too far in either direction.
Thanks,
Marcus
--
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org brinkmd@debian.org
Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org marcus@gnu.org
Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de
http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de
Reply to: