Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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.
okay. Things are clearer now. At time of writing I though there was some other packages in same case but after a quick search didn't find any. > > 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. You may also make gnome-core depends on capplets and not g-c-c :) But users of gnome-core will also want to use g-c-c. So this explanation has more sens to me than the previous ones. This taken into account, I'm fine with the change. > Given that g-c-c is only 200 KB, unsplitting makes a lot of sense. Nowadays, we have big hard drives so imho, size is no more a big matter Regards, Arnaud -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
