Re: separation emacs-common into more packages

Przemek Klosowski <przemek.klosowski@xxxxxxxx> · Tue, 10 Sep 2013 14:06:48 -0400



    On 09/10/2013 10:06 AM, 80 wrote:

    
          as an emacs user, splitting emacs-common has little value to
          me, and without a package requiring most of the splitted
          packages, it might even turn into an annoyance (much like
          texlive).

        
    Yeah, 4872  packages reported by repoquery texlive*. That's over 12%
    of the total number of Fedora packages (38413). 

    
    At first, I thought that it has an excessive number of small
    packages---about half of texlive packages are smaller than 50kB. It
    turns out, however, that it is par for the course in Fedora; 41% of
    all packages are smaller than 50kB. 

    
    In fact, as you can see from the attached histogram comparing  the
    size distribution of Fedora and texlive packages, both distributions
    peak around 20kB, which I suspect may be due to RPM packaging
    overhead rather than the inherent payload size. 

    
    Is it reasonable to have so many small packages, especially if, as
    is the case of texlive, they are closely related? Are there any
    guidelines for when some sort of bundling is appropriate?

  
Attachment:
sizeDist.png

Description: PNG image
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct