Re: RFS: genwebgallery
Just to put another 2 cents on this topic... I think I got Patrick's point as well as Asheesh's one. My personal opinion is that I just don't like those packages filled with lots of stuff I don't need but I need to install when I want a small part of it (like a 200 lines script), but IANADD. On Fri, Jul 04, 2008 at 08:41:02PM +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote: > I ask to *just think* a moment weither a single package is adequate for a > single 200 line script, or not. And I really appreciate that always some of us are looking on things from another point of view. Since I like this package (and I looked at it; it seems to be in a good shape) I'd really like if a DD would spend some time on it. So, volunteers? :) Cheers, Hauke signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: genwebgallery
Hi, On Fri, Jul 04, 2008 at 10:57:34AM -0700, Asheesh Laroia wrote: > Honestly, disks are cheap, and buildds don't spend a lot of time on shell > script packages since they don't need to be built. 5 kilobytes for a > .deb file and its source packaging is not a great burden to ask of the > mirror operators. (And five kilobytes is a generous estimate.) I wouldn't really mind if I would buy the diskspace, but given that mirror operators do it on a volunteer base, do it free and do not only mirror our archives I think we should have some sanity. Its not that I ask to exclude the script from Debian. I ask to not *waste* space at the wrong places. Disk space is cheap, you say. Thats true, if people have a chance to decide weither they want to waste that particular byte or not. Mirror operators don't have the choice (or better said they give space to the project and ask it to use it sane), so we do have to be sane. Users have the choice, they can decide weither they install a great package including thousands of little scripts and binaries, or not. I ask to *just think* a moment weither a single package is adequate for a single 200 line script, or not. Best Regards, Patrick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: genwebgallery
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote: Hi, On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 07:29:49PM +0200, markus schnalke wrote: But back to `genwebgallery': I think packages should be like programs according to the Unix philosophy: - small and simple - do one thing well I would usually agree with you, but only to some extent. After all each package has a given overhead, needs mirror space and bandwith. If you package is only a 200 lines shell script its just questionable if the ratio program ./ additional needed space for the packaging is okay. Also consider that my argumentation is not that your utility isn't worth to be included into Debian. My argumentation is, that it would be good to add it to another package, which includes similar tools. This way the general overhead is reduced, mirror space isn't excessive used and the user who would otherwise install both tools (which is very likeley if tools are similar) would save some wasted space, too. Honestly, disks are cheap, and buildds don't spend a lot of time on shell script packages since they don't need to be built. 5 kilobytes for a .deb file and its source packaging is not a great burden to ask of the mirror operators. (And five kilobytes is a generous estimate.) Is this a real issue? I don't mean to flame, but to understand and create a coherent perspective. (-: -- Asheesh. -- I am having FUN... I wonder if it's NET FUN or GROSS FUN? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: genwebgallery
Hi, On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 07:29:49PM +0200, markus schnalke wrote: > But back to `genwebgallery': > > I think packages should be like programs according to the Unix > philosophy: > - small and simple > - do one thing well I would usually agree with you, but only to some extent. After all each package has a given overhead, needs mirror space and bandwith. If you package is only a 200 lines shell script its just questionable if the ratio program ./ additional needed space for the packaging is okay. Also consider that my argumentation is not that your utility isn't worth to be included into Debian. My argumentation is, that it would be good to add it to another package, which includes similar tools. This way the general overhead is reduced, mirror space isn't excessive used and the user who would otherwise install both tools (which is very likeley if tools are similar) would save some wasted space, too. Just my 2 cents. Best Regards, Patrick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: genwebgallery
schoenfeld / in-medias-res <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 09:37:37PM +0200, markus schnalke wrote: > > genwebgallery is written in sh, without bashism. > > please don't get me wrong, but your script (regardless of weither its > good in what it does) is (including comments) 260 lines long. I wonder > if that size really qualifies for an own package. Did you check if your > software could be included in another package? I haven't checked it > properly, but eventually 'debian-goodies' would be a candidate. > If you think it justifies to be a package on its own, why do you think > so? IANADD but it could enhance your chances to find a sponsor if you > give a statement on that:-) It's an interesting point you have. In contrast, I would say: Why are there so many large packages with lots of dependencies. Why dont spit them to make them small and simple? I know, it's not that easy. :-) But what I want to say is, that I think packages should be small and simple. This is the way to have less bugs and better customizable setups. You probably read, that I work on a small image resizing program. The reason is, that `imagemagick' as well as `graphicsmagick' are far to large packages when I only want some image resizing. (I had to install 80MB for `imagemagick' on a fresh base installation!) I think it would be better if ImageMagick would be a few separate programs, and a virtual package that depends on all of them. Just like it was done with OOo some time ago. But I know, that it's not so easy to split program suites up. What there should be, are small alternatives to ImageMagick and GraphicsMagick, with only some of it's features. Cause I haven't found them, I work on programming one. But back to `genwebgallery': I think packages should be like programs according to the Unix philosophy: - small and simple - do one thing well That's why `genwebgallery' is like it is. Anyway: If someone has good suggestions, please tell me. meillo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: genwebgallery
Hi Markus, On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 09:37:37PM +0200, markus schnalke wrote: > genwebgallery is written in sh, without bashism. please don't get me wrong, but your script (regardless of weither its good in what it does) is (including comments) 260 lines long. I wonder if that size really qualifies for an own package. Did you check if your software could be included in another package? I haven't checked it properly, but eventually 'debian-goodies' would be a candidate. If you think it justifies to be a package on its own, why do you think so? IANADD but it could enhance your chances to find a sponsor if you give a statement on that:-) Best Regards, Patrick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: genwebgallery
Murphy sayed you will always forget something in emails ... and so did I ;-) I wanted to post a link to a web gallery generated with `genwebgallery'. Here it is: http://tmp.marmaro.de/genwebgallery-example/index.html meillo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
