On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 15:28, Rainer Orth wrote: > Peter Tribble <P.Tribble at herts.ac.uk> writes: > > > I'm sure you could go through the other packages and amalgamate > > extensively. I see no justification for my machine to have 1371 > > distinct packages installed - how can anyone make sense of that? > > I don't like this part: just keep the exiting packages as is (which makes > it possible to remove stuff you really don't need/want, e.g. on > appliance-type machines where the installation footprint is important, as > well as on minimized special-purpose machines like a KDC)
It was my intention that reducing the number of packages would make minimization easier. It should certainly reduce the dependency problem, and the new package structure should be along more meaningful boundaries. It's not *just* lumping them all together. Does splitting gnome into over 200 packages help anybody? Or CDE into over 20? Many other packages deliver 1 or 2 files, and the package overhead is significant. Besides, if you want to get down to individual files you can do that as well. For example, I use removef to get rid of /usr/ucb/cc. (It's a shame this isn't persistent across updates.) Is the package the correct fundamental unit of granularity? -- -Peter Tribble L.I.S., University of Hertfordshire - http://www.herts.ac.uk/ http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/
