Le mardi 28 juin 2005 à 11:10 +0200, Arnaud Patard a écrit : > Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I don't see why they should be split, even though they are different. > > The split would have a sense if gnome-control-center wasn't installed by > > default, but this isn't the case as our policy is to make gnome-core > > depend on it. > > Okay. But would that mean unsplitting packages that are in gnome-core > depends ? I'll tend to say no (maybe I'm wrong)..., so why should the > g-c-c be a particular case ?
Erm, g-c-c is the only package with such a split. Other splits are justified by separating architecture-independent data or shared libraries. I don't know of other splits, but if there are, we should probably unsplit them the same way. The point of unsplitting g-c-c is that most users that would only want capplets (users running a full GNOME desktop) are using gnome-core, which in turn depends on g-c-c. If there are users of the g-c-c interface, they install g-c-c, which in turn depends on capplets. Given that g-c-c is only 200 KB, unsplitting makes a lot of sense. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette /\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
