Joe Orton wrote:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 10:28:45AM -0600, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
Joe Orton wrote:
I take it from the wiki page, that we should hold of on using this too
aggressively until some distro-wide guidelines are produced?
e.g. for -devel packages given that 99% of the content is generally
noarch-able there would be a lot of scope for splitting those up.
...except for the important symlinks-to-versioned-.so's?
Right, the symlink and e.g. a pkg-config file are typically the 1% which
isn't noarch-able.
Doesn't that kind of break things for -devel unless you break it into
-devel-libs and -devel-headers (eek :-( )?
Yup, you'd have to do something like that. It's not obviously an "eek"
to me; it's a trade-off.
Um. Maybe if you name things -devel (arch) which depends on
-devel-common (noarch). But that's still another package I have to
install for just about every -devel :-(.
For some numbers, I have 1296 installed packages, of which 172 are
-devel... so you're talking probably a 10% increase in the number of
installed packages (even if the actual disk usage doesn't change
appreciably) if most -devel packages end up being split. Maybe not
horrible, but that's still a fair number of additional packages.
I'm not convinced that's a good idea, but I suppose it's up to the
maintainers. (I do like the idea of e.g. -doc, though.) Like you say,
it's a trade-off.
--
Matthew
Please do not quote my e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.
--
You are in a dark room. The only exit is a door to the east.
> OPEN DOOR
I don't know which door you mean.
> OPEN EAST DOOR
It's locked.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
