Fine packaging granularity (Was Re: pcre packages)
Mon May 12 23:35:00 GMT 2003
On Mon, 12 May 2003, Charles Wilson wrote:
> Please don't go back here.
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > The archives look ok but do we really need 5 of them for a 145K package?
> > Why not delivering cygpcre.dll and cygpcreposix.dll as hardlinks inside
> > of libpcre0? As long as pcre isn't breaking backward compatibility,
> > that should be ok. And the docs could be part of the devel package,
> > I guess. This would drop the packages to 3 + src.
> Trust me, bite the bullet now. That way, you'll have fewer problems
> when (if) pcre-5.0 breaks compatibility. Arguably, ALL packages that
> provide DLLs and have *any* possibility of API changes should be
> packaged this way.
> After all, Red Hat does, for most -src.rpm's that provide libraries.
> Ditto Debian. Splitting is good.
> Splitting upon initial contribution is even better, because it avoids
> the upgrade hell that these five packages are necessary to work around,
> in order to get to the state of goodness that is 'split packages'.
Right now fine granularity is a matter of prudence and, possibly, personal
preference. If we ever plan to make it a matter of policy (or, at least,
encourage it), we should allow for a better hierarchy of categories than
the one-level flat one that we currently have, IMO. As more and more
packages start adopting this fine-grained packaging scheme, it's going to
be essential to be able to navigate through them (again IMO). So, I
thought I'd throw this out into the open now and ask for peoples opinions.
|\ _,,,---,,_ email@example.com
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ firstname.lastname@example.org
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow!
Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty.
-- Leto II
More information about the Cygwin-apps