[arch-dev-public] [core] progress
aaronmgriffin at gmail.com
Fri Sep 14 19:09:37 EDT 2007
On 9/14/07, Jan de Groot <jan at jgc.homeip.net> wrote:
> I would prefer to have the splitup as layed
> out above: C/C++ in one compiler package, C/C++ runtime libs in one
> package and one package for each language we support (objc moves to a
> standalone pkg).
I like this too. We don't really want to go too crazy with splitting
things whenever possible. I mean, it's nice an all, but there's a fine
line where things become a pain to maintain simply because we wanted
to save one or two deps and a few hundred K of disk.
But I trust you know what you're doing here. I'll throw my weight
behind the list you had above:
> > > - syslogng needs to be reviewed
> > eliott brought up a worthwhile point. While it might be ugly, what's
> > wrong with throwing glib into the 'devel' category?
> glib2 is not devel, it's a lib!
Ack yeah. I meant, really "why not move glib2 to core?" - the exact
category is bikeshed-y, I just didn't want to go all overboard with
how we split up core.
How does everyone else feel on splitting off all the libs into a "lib"
category. Personally, it feels a tad artificial to me, because the
other stuff is split into *usage* based categories ("this is a base
system, these are support files") and not really *what* the packages
are ("these are network related, these are modules, these are text
But still, I'd like some more opinions here.
> Also, why do we call a directory full of drivers "support"? Why not
> drivers or so?
This was explained by brain0 - but again, the naming is really
superfluous, and doesn't matter that much. As a side note though, it's
not all drivers. As Thomas explained it, it is all the stuff that is
needed to go from "ok installed" to "pacman -Syu" - most likely all
network stuff, but I could foresee other things too.
Andy suggested the name "essential".
More information about the arch-dev-public