David R. Morrison [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: > I gave the argument for making the split above. Here's an argument for > NOT splitting: after all, a lot of this pkg/pkg-shlibs split is designed > to accomodate a future library revision, which may or may not ever take > place. In that future library revision, the binaries will probably also > be provided. So, although it might increase dpkg's time in swapping > things in and out, the basic non-shlibs package could contain a bunch > of other stuff like binaries. A problem would only arise if some other > package wanted to verify that the binaries were present, not just the > libraries. If that is the case, then the binaries will have to be split > out for that package.
Another thing to keep in mind is that (until my shipment comes -- yay!) I am currently on a 600MHz G3 iBook -- not the fastest OSX machine on the planet. Building my package *3* times is not something I look forward to, Especially if we end up doing this with things like, say, X. =) Keeping it down to libs and app would make that kind of thing much easier on people with older or less powerful systems. Now I know that this isn't an issue for people who use fink from stable with apt, but since fink is still rather young and a lot of people build from source, it's definitely not a small thing to think about. Perhaps this should be kept in mind when working on the new package format; if you go to a variants system, maybe it's a good idea to be able to build multiple sub-packages from a single info file to keep from building X 4 times for one set of packages while you're at it. -- Ben Reed a.k.a. Ranger Rick ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://defiance.dyndns.org/ / http://radio.scenespot.org/ Frankenstein was the creator -- not the monster. It's a common misconception, held by all truly stupid people. -- Kryten _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
