Hi, On st, 2007-04-11 at 22:38, Peter Tribble wrote: > On 4/11/07, Bart Smaalders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Peter Tribble wrote: > > > I like the second idea - remove the package entirely and make sure > > > the files are always available under any conditions. > > > > > > (One could also ask why SUNWesu is a separate package.) > > > > > > > I was under the impression that many people found our package > > breakdown already too coarse. Is this not the case? > > No, we have far too many packages. The resulting level of choice > and subsequent diversity of configuration lead to chaos. > > Ultimately, the split into packages is done along boundaries that > aren't useful for users. > > Two contrasting examples: > > SUNWsmapi shouldn't exist as a package - it supplies one library > which is used by the format command. (And presumably other things, > but splitting a single library used by the format command into a separate > package just can't be right.) >
Are you sure that nobody needs just that library and not binaries which depend on that library? > In snv_61, we get svn. In order for the svn client to work you need > to install the apache2 server. > OK, so svn client should go to apache2 package? And if somebody doesn't need svn client, but wants to have apache2? > The second case argues for more granularity, for sure - we just need > to do the other half of the problem and consolidate packages that don't > need to be split. > OK, you have some "needs". But there are also others. It is much simpler to install two packages then delete some files, or not? Actually, I think we have too big packages. Best regards, Milan _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
