On Feb 15, 2004, at 1:56 PM, David R. Morrison wrote:
So I tend to agree with Remi that, given the patches which already exist, something like 300K is probably a more reasonable cutoff than 30K. Or maybe something in between, like 100K?
Why? You're being 'arbitrary' again. :) I based my number on looking at what packages were in fink already. It's quite rare that a package has to go over 30. 100K is extremely rare (only one or two, many of which are packaging errors). 50 might be acceptable. We can also consider whether a package will be used by many people, for example a 70K patch should be fine for KDE since it is a very popular thing.
Whatever, i'm done..
And whats with the 'Hi Ben,' condescension, Dave?
-Ben
As a user with three fink installations (one for general use, one to test packages and one on an original iBook with only a 3 GB hard drive), I'm certainly interested in keeping the size of the distribution as small as practical. But any change in policy should probably only be applied going forward, rather than make maintainers go back and "fix" a bunch of existing packages.
I don't see how the "popularity" of a package makes it any more acceptable to have a large patch. It takes up room on my hard drive no matter how popular it is. This approach would only make sense if patches were only downloaded when I decided to install a package.
Kevin Horton
------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now. Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356&alloc_id=3438&op=click _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
