On 11/21/20 4:52 AM, Pierre Schmitz wrote: > Hi all, > > there is a new set of openssl packages in testing that are split into > openssl, openssl-doc and openssl-perl. See > https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/54887
As I mentioned there, I don't really see the need to make a split package just for 25kb of optional scripts that can just use optdepends. "I tendo o lean towards a separate package instead of using optdepends as it is more explicit and you do not end up with partly invalid package." Do you then propose Arch should switch policies and start using split packages everywhere instead of our usual optdepends? Not sure what to think here. This feels inconsistent. > As most users just need the library the perl dependency can be > dropped. Summing up: > > Before: > openssl: depends on Perl; size: 3.6 MiB (7.31 MiB) > > After: > openssl: depends just on glibc; size: 1.78 MiB (5.49 MiB) > openssl-perl: depends on Perl > openssl-doc: size: 1.82 MiB > > We actually talked about this at ArchConf last year. Splitting the > package was the easy part, but dropping the Perl dependency means that > any package up the tree that depends on openssl needs to be checked if > it actually needs Perl itself. Thanks to everybody who did the hard > work here! > > PS: Do you think we should post a news item about this change? Most > people won't need to worry about this, but those few who need the perl > scripts need to install the separate package. I don't see any need for a news post to tell people that a script no one uses comes in a different package. If you did want to message this to people, it doesn't require manual intervention so a post_upgrade message is perfectly suitable. -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
OpenPGP_0x84818A6819AF4A9B.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature