Graham, Thanks for the info. We should perhaps contact somebody from the ftp-masters crew to ask an opinion on this particular matter. Any ideas who that could be?
--Nico On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 1:06 PM Graham Inggs <[email protected]> wrote: > On 22/09/2015 14:50, Nico Schlömer wrote: > >> I'm just comparing how the old (10.0.4.dsfg-1.1) package was built in > >> Debian. The old packaging produced 5 binary packages, your new > >> packaging produces 94! > >> Is this really necessary? > > > > The structure of Trilinos is much better reflected by this many packages > > than it was with 5. In many ways, Trilinos works like Boost, particularly > > in that it is essentially a collection of "packages". I didn't see a > > disadvantage in having many packages either. Perhaps that presents a > > problem somewhere? > > The disadvantage is that adding packages adds to amount of data that > everyone has to download on every update (not only those who have your > packages installed). > It also increases the size of the dependency graph that package managers > like apt need to handle. There was a thread on debian-mentors [1] about > this some time ago. > > Basically, for packages with high install counts like libboost and > libreoffice, it makes sense to split the packages (e.g. a user of > English help is unlikely to install help in any other language). For > packages with low install counts, and whose users are likely to install > most of the packages anyway, it does not make sense to split the packages. > > Ultimately, the decision lies with ftpmaster whether this package will > be accepted, and they will ask 'Is there a valid reason to provide a new > binary package?', see 'Checks for new binary packages' [2]. > > > [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2014/04/msg00256.html > [2] https://ftp-master.debian.org/NEW-checklist.html > >
