On 22/10/2007, Danek Duvall <danek.duvall at sun.com> wrote: > > It's an existing de facto standard of behaviour, and users are > > comfortable with it already. Dare I say, "expect it". > > Just because someone's used to something doesn't mean that it's the right > thing, or that they wouldn't appreciate something better. Again, > personally, I've always appreciated the granularity of the "sub-packages", > but thought they were awkward and easy to forget. I'd love not to have to > have them at all.
I'd have to agree with that. Having a separate package called -devel, -docs, etc. instead of just having a special filter that allows packages to install docs or development material as appropriate is far preferable to me. Not only does it make things simpler to manage (in my view), but it keeps the number of packages to be managed from exponentially increasing. RedHat also has some "debuginfo" packages too to make matters even more "fun". To me, having a single package for an application with filters akin to "installation options" much more closely mirrors what the majority of the software world is doing (Windows, Mac, etc.). -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst binarycrusader at gmail.com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. " --Donald Knuth
