On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 10:02:30PM +1000, Dmitry Smirnov wrote: > On Wednesday, 27 April 2016 8:32:06 AM AEST Antonio Terceiro wrote: > > I can point you to countless examples of applications written Perl and > > Python whose libraries can be loaded from the global namespace, or Perl > > and Python libraries that also provide executables. > > I think it is not about exceptions from the rule but general attitude. > I have impression that other teams aim to ship/isolate libraries in > appropriate binary packages, at least for new packages. Here apparently I've > been specifically advised not to do so... by your line of thinking we would be splitting every single application in 2 packages (foo and ruby-foo, foo and python-foo, foo and libfoo-perl), because every reasonably engineered application has library code. That does not seem reasonable to me. Is anyone adivising people to do that?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature