Philip Brown wrote on 07.10.2009 23:28:
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Sebastian Kayser <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> This reminds me of when i started using Debian. It was always the one
>> -devel package that was missing. You get used to it somehow, just in our
>> case one doesn't even know whether there is a a -devel package at all.
>>
>> Would going back to don't have devel splits at all be an option?
>>
>
> well, it sort of would be, if you voted for "case by case basis".
> Why did you not vote for that option, if you feel this way?
>
> http://doodle.com/2e8eakee997gtmmv
Simply rethinking my opinion after the input in this thread. Was used to
the -devel split from other platforms, we started introducing more
-devel packages. Consistent user experience makes great sense to me, so
why not go all the way.
Thinking about the contrary, like James suggested ("I think that
installing a product by name should install that product, a 1:1
correspondence between upstream product and top level package with the
same name"), also makes sense to me. It is just as consistent as strict
_devel splits.
That's why i was asking:
Would going back to don't have devel splits *at all* also be an option?
Sebastian
_______________________________________________
maintainers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
