Aaron Griffin wrote:
On 7/12/07, Paul Mattal <paul@mattal.com> wrote:
Jürgen Hötzel wrote:
Featuritis. Another pacman feature, that should not be part of a simple lightweight package manager. License issues do need to be handled somewhere. I think we've already chosen to handle them in pacman, by putting all that information into packages.
We could separate this out into a separate binary that uses libalpm and acts as a wrapper around real pacman, I suppose, if that would make people feel better. That seems to me like even more complexity for a fairly lightweight feature.
I have to agree with Paul here. I mean, if you want to play the featuritis game, I could go on and on about packaging - for instance, why don't we build binary packages with all DB info for that package already in the var/lib/pacman directory? That way we don't even need pacman, just untar it at the top level. That'd strip pacman code in half, who needs this "feature creep" of actually installing packages?
If you didn't catch it, the above is me being snarky. I see too many people call "feature creep" on things which, really, aren't that complicated. Seriously, adding the license stuff into pacman would be FAR less code than say, colored output, which apparently everyone wants and no one is concerned about.
I just want to temper this by saying.. I think we should be wary of feature creep. But I don't think this is it, given that we've put license management squarely into pacman's domain in the first place. Regardless, I'm not planning to implement this pacman feature, so I can avoid the argument altogether. :) - P