Thank you for the reference. In looking at Shawn's final reply on this
thread listing all of the advantages of having separate source packages,
I'm wondering about how this would read if "locale facet" or
"development facet" where substituted for "source" in them?
<example (don't take literally)>
* ability to add other language packages as dependencies
* ability to add language specific dictionaries as dependencies for packages
* minimises repository management impact (zfs snapshots, etc.)
* minimises performance and bandwidth impact for users that aren't
interested in other language packages
* minimises impact on sites mirroring the package repositories (rsync, etc.)
* allows language specific package statistic tracking to be separate from
English package statistics
* creates clear boundaries between English and other language packages
* allows distinct resource provisioning for English vs. other language package
delivery
* allows repository page customisation focused on other language delivery
* prevents pollution of search results for both English and other language
packages
* better matches with user experience with other packaging systems
(think SVR4, etc.)
</example>
I'm still curious as to what determines whether something should be a
facet or a separate package.
Clearly, we are heading along the path that locales should be facets.
And the conclusion of that thread was that source should be separate
packages. So is there a qualitative difference between these? Or is it
just quantitative? Source is too much data? Not enough users are
interested? etc. And if quantitative, when do the numbers justify
using separate packages?
Tom
Laszlo (Laca) Peter wrote:
On Sun, 2009-05-24 at 21:07 -0500, Tom Mueller wrote:
Any reason why source isn't a facet?
That was my initial idea, discussed in this thread:
http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/pkg-discuss/2008-December/thread.html#9484
Laca
[email protected] wrote:
By default, the source packages will be called
src/<binary package name>
unless there's a better suggestion.
You don't what to do that as the common case of "pkg install <binary
package name>" will result in ambiguity and a failure to install the
package. I would incorporate the tag as a proper prefix or suffix in
the name.
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
begin:vcard
fn:Tom Mueller
n:Mueller;Tom
org:Sun Microsystems, Inc.;SWI Install/Update Software
adr:;;21915 Hillandale Dr;Elkhorn;NE;68022;USA
email;internet:[email protected]
title:Senior Staff Engineer
tel;work:877-250-4011
tel;fax:877-250-4011
tel;home:402-916-9943
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
version:2.1
end:vcard
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
