splitting up distro packages (was: KDE 4 modules structure (again))

[Michael Nottebrock]

On Sunday 14 March 2004 19:09, Dominique Devriese wrote:

> 1 Knoppix and related cd's are very concerned with disk space.
> 2 Debian policy disallows not splitting the packages
> 3 A lot of admin's are still very concerned with disk space.
> 4 There are no downsides, if you provide proper metapackages.
>
> It is simply good packaging practice to properly split up the
> packages, and if some distributions don't do it atm, then that is
> simply due to the amount of effort it would take.  Look at gnome,
> which is properly split up in every distro I know.

However, opinions about this "properly" split way of distributing GNOME very 
much differs among users. From my experience in FreeBSD, the number of people 
annoyed by the atomicity of GNOME approximately equals the number of people 
annoyed by the size of the KDE modules - this might be related to the fact 
that on FreeBSD actually more people are building ports from source and less 
are using the packages (although they are built from the same ports).

I think an overly generalised approach to the apps-vs-modules problem will not 
really meet the requirements and desires of the users (and I'm not even 
taking developers' interests into account here).

-- 
   ,_,   | Michael Nottebrock               | lofi at freebsd.org
 (/^ ^\) | FreeBSD - The Power to Serve     | http://www.freebsd.org
   \u/   | K Desktop Environment on FreeBSD | http://freebsd.kde.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: signature
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20040314/6bca751f/attachment.sig>