> As for the small package size, if it is that important we could create > seperate packages with info documentation. What do you think?
I usually don't participate in these discussions because they happen every couple months, but I've outlined problems with generating multiple package files from a single PKGBUILD. http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.arch.general/2831/match=multiple+package+single+pkgbuild That's the best reference I can find with just a cursory search. Now, there were patches that I wrote for gensync that let it generate repositories from package files instead of PKGBUILDs. It was never accepted, but it would have gotten around a lot of the one PKGBUILD, one package problems. Then again srcpac, makepkg, checkpkg, extra/current/testing/unstablepkg, and makeworld would all have to be updated. As would the software we use for archlinux.org and the AUR. Cover all those cases and I'd be a lot more interested. Now if you're talking about documentation like qt-doc, then that's a little more reasonable. Except that you have, worst case, twice as many packages to maintain. Jason -- If you understand, things are just as they are. If you do not understand, things are just as they are.
pgp36ESThI9pR.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
