In reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin Schulze)
>
>Hello,
>
>There was a discussion just about that topic a few weeks ago on the list.
yes, i remember that.
>I think the main points were that
>a) The targets itself are small
but that's irrelevant, or at least it should be.
>b) The docs would cause problems if the targets would go into
>seperate libs
i don't see the problem. documentation for targets should be a
separate thing anyway, at least conceptually and ideally in practice.
>c) It would be confusing for the user who doesn't know about targets and
> what targets he needs
if a user is installing ggi by himself he should probably know about
targets. if he doesn't, we will have to learn anyway. if ggi comes
from a distribution then the distribution itself should take care of
selecting the appropriate targets.
it is interesting to note that debian already separate targets on its
distribution. it is the correct thing to do, and that's what the
debian ggi maintainer ends up doing by himself. if the binaries are
separated, why not separate the sources?
>In my opinion it would be best to seperate a few rarely used targets into
>a kind of add-on-package. Maybe some other stuff could go there as well.
but who decides what's a 'rarely used target'? it is better to be
consistent and separate everything from the start. there is absolutely
no reason for not doing so except the convenience of not changing
things as they are now. i hope the debian example shows that this is
the way to go.
>The problem with those "coulds" and "woulds" is that someone has to do it
>..
o yes...
--
Cesar Augusto Rorato Crusius __o __o __o __o __o
Stanford University _`\<, _`\<, _`\<, _`\<, _`\<,
e-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (_)/(_) (_)/(_) (_)/(_) (_)/(_) (_)/(_)
www.stanford.edu/~crusius
o _ _ _
__o __o __o __o /\_ _ \\o (_)\__/o (_)
_`\<, _`\<, _`\<, _`\<, _>(_) (_)/<_ \_| \ _|/' \/
(_)/(_) (_)/(_) (_)/(_) (_)/(_) (_) (_) (_) (_)' _\o_
He who sacrifices functionality for ease of use
Loses both and deserves neither
