On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 11:26:11AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > On 05/15/2011 08:59, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > >bundling extra .cab file does not add plethora of extra stuff that user > >would have to pull as extra dependencies, 2/3 increase of relatively > >light package seems quite tolerable; in return, we provide single > >package user can install and forget about it. > > I strongly disagree with this perspective. I think Gerald is on the > right path, smaller and lighter packages are the way to go.
I totally agree as well when we speak of dozens of extra dependencies and tens megabytes worth of difference. Not when it's just single extra static file added. (OTOH, maybe 17M + 2/3 does indeed sound like a bit heavy for some of us.) Yet again, I am not against package flexibility; surely we would benefit greatly from something like RPM %package. For now, however, OPTIONS do a better job most of the time, and IMHO slaves should not be (ab)used unless being clear winners. Disclaimer: please do not view this as criticism of Gerald's work; as I've said, I really appreciate and value his work on Wine. I'm just sharing my opinion on some details of implementation and try to get my own views WRT the subject in a better shape. :-) ./danfe _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
