On 18-10-2007, Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 09:26:24AM +0000, Sylvain Le Gall wrote: >> IMHO, i would prefer having a lot of small packages that can be updated >> independently (i.e. one package per extension). Maybe you can consider >> that those extensions will be "Arch: all" and will only add 1 package and >> no buildd load...=20 > > I don't want to carry the load of having several extension packages when > the extensions are small. I think it's unlikely that we will have a > package for the various extensions I mentioned in the wiki page; at > least I don't think I will take the steps to create the various packages > (but frankly I don't think anyone else will). > > On the contrary I think I will be happy to work, once, in creating the > aggregate package. That's it. > > I agree with the perplexities of multi-source Debian packages in > general, but I do believe they make sense for small pieces of software > and we have plenty of examples in the archive; I myself are maintaining > vim-addons for example. Note that the case of ocamlmakefile was quite > peculiar in this respect, since it's a package on which a lot of > packages can build depend. >
Classical discussion about this topic (1 big package or a lot of small one). It is only a matter of taste, so i have nothing against this. Next step, is to understand how you can integrate it in a META file (you can, but will it be mandatory) ? Regards, Sylvain Le Gall -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
