[pacman-dev] pacman packaging
aarcane at gmail.com
Tue Jan 9 00:39:10 EST 2007
I'd have to say that when presented in that manner, I agree that
unnesecary splits seem bad.
it's a tough issue. on one hand, we could split, but then a user
would have to think more. may need a utility and not have it.
on the other hand, if we don't split, there are more binaries on a
system, and that means more chance for a user to break something.
then again, if an arch user breaks something, it's his or her own
fault, since we don't claim to be an entry level distro.
then again since we're not an entry level distro, we should give a
little more thought to security, and system performance, IE not
over-crowding the system, etc.
there are alot of pros and cons for each way. however, I have to say
this: if we split, then aurbuild needs to be included in
pacman-utils, or at least in a package (like aur-utils or something)
of it's own.
On 1/8/07, Jason Chu <jason at archlinux.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Jan 2007 17:51:22 -0500
> "Dan McGee" <dpmcgee at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 1/8/07, Jason Chu <jason at archlinux.org> wrote:
> > > Not to be contradictory, but what does this gain us? It seperates
> > > things, sure, but so what? What problem are we solving by splitting
> > > things up?
> > Part of it was just putting the idea out there and seeing what people
> > thought. However, I think it would follow the KISS policy a bit more,
> > separating package installation from package building. You don't need
> > to install Apache to browse the web (obviously this is not quite that
> > extreme, but helps clarify my point).
> > -Dan
> I would argue that simple would be not splitting. A second package
> means more thought: "why can't I build a package? I have pacman
> installed!"; more maintenance: <aaron>: "Ok, I've got a new version of
> pacman, now I have to update pacman and pacman-utils".
> It's true that you don't need to install apache to browse the web, but
> you do have to install the freeciv server to get the freeciv client,
> mplayer to get mencoder, sshd to get ssh, and tightvnc to get vncserver.
> It's usually been our policy not to split if we can help it. Some
> reasons for splitting are package size (especially when a package is a
> dependency of another package (see libmysqlclient & postgresql-libs))
> or a split upstream.
> Maybe I'm wrong though. Rpm and dpkg are split in such a way, but
> they're also huge projects.
> pacman-dev mailing list
> pacman-dev at archlinux.org
More information about the pacman-dev