On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 18:08:50 +0200 Heiko Baums <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Am Mon, 02 Aug 2010 15:31:47 +0200 > schrieb Pierre Chapuis <catwell@xxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > > Just for information, the opposite point of view recently came up on > > the suckless mailing-list: > > http://lists.suckless.org/dev/1007/5256.html > > > > I prefer Arch's approach but it is probably true that a large base > > system reduces the workload of package maintainers. > > I don't know Source Mage, but I think that a large base system (as I > understand this posting, all in one big package) has only > disadvantages. It's far less flexible, wastes much more disk space > for unneeded tools, makes a lot more work for the users and > maintainers, because the base package - as I understand the posting - > needs to be updated more often (a big package needs to be updated > every time one small tool is updated), which forces the users to > regularly download and the maintainers to regularly rebuild and > upload a bigger package instead of sometimes down- and uploading a > few much smaller packages, etc. > > Not really a good idea. > > Heiko I think they mean keeping regular packages like usual, but just making more packages part of the base group. And like I said earlier, I don't see the point either. Dieter
