Akim Demaille wrote: > [gnulib] > > I never liked that > > design, and apparently it's now causing me actual problems by > > breaking the simple download and vastly increasing the clone size > > (AFAICS, most of it is downloading the gnulib history which I don't > > care a tiny bit about, especially not when just trying to build > > Bison). > > I can understand this. However, this is the only model I can > see that really allows the maintainer of a package to be able > to use the latest version of the library, in case it addresses > a recent portability issue.
Does this happen so often? Otherwise, why not -- just like with any other library -- let affected users upgrade their library once instead of having to rebuild all packages that use it? IOW, why should the maintainer of a package have to care about the library version, as long as it satisfies her package's requirements, i.e. specify a minimum version as required by the package? > It's not too inconvenient to use > as a user of git, and it's completely invisible for the end > user (i.e., users of the tarballs). Mostly ... ;) > > Perhaps what I can do (as I slight kludge) for future patches is to > [...] > > The easiest, by far, would be for me to provide you with a > viable tarball :( That's a bit unpractical for every small change. Regards, Frank