On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 01:05:25PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote: > Note: I have an ITP open on libformatr-ruby (#295171) and both this > library and formatr are very small, so I am hesitant to put them in > their own packages. I plan instead to create an aggregate package > (libruby-extras or something) with non-standard ruby libs that are > helpful.
I wouldn't do that. Do these have different upstreams? Do these have different release cycles? Aggregating upstreams has the disadvantage that one upstream update means upgrading a whole bunch of stuff en masse. For example, I reallly really really hate the current rails packaging in Debian. The "rails" package actually bundles at least five different things. This might be a good thing from upstream's (rather limited and short sighted) point of view but sort of defeats the purpose of having a good package manager to work with. Upstream's reasoning, as far as I been able to grasp it, mainly focuses on Microsoft Windows environments and the very brain-damaged packaging system that's ruby gems. The rails package contains stuff that very useful on its own, but from the POV of rails it's just a little nuissanse. This doesn't mean that you can't just install "rails" and use the useful stuff, you can (even if it's "hidden" in /usr/share/rails), but as times goes forward, "rails" pulls in more and more unwanted stuff. Marcelo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
