On 11/09/2007, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Michel Salim <michel.sylvan <at> gmail.com> writes: > Both monolithic and modular packaging has advantages and disadvantages. The > advantages of the monolithic way: > * less packages => less packaging work > * clearer versioning: You know that you're using KDE 3.5.7, whereas for e.g. > GNOME, you have stuff versioned 2.18.0, 2.18.1, 2.18.2, ... and it's hard to > figure out what GNOME version this actually corresponds to (and similarly for > the new modular X.Org X11). > Oh yes. Figuring out which parts of X.org 7.3 is in F8 and which is not, is not exactly trivial. > But of course, the advantages of the modular way (independent updates, better > granularity for end-users) have been beaten to death on this list already. The > granularity could be obtained in other ways though (e.g. subpackages). > Subpackages give end-users better granularity, but still does not allow for independent updates (unless, taking Umbrello as an example, an urgent Umbrello release is handled by building a separate package that is versioned higher than the bundled kdesdk-umbrello). Gets unwieldy really fast! (Alternatively, kdesdk maintainer needs to pull the fix pertaining to Umbrello, apply it as a patch, release it and prepare for the grumbles from other kdesdk users who then have to upgrade) > Still, my current position (and as far as I was able to tell from the general > feeling when this issue came up in the IRC meetings, also the one of the KDE > SIG, feel free to correct me if I'm misrepresenting anyone's opinion here) is > that unleashing even a subpackage for every single KDE app would lead to a > gigantic mess which would cause more problems than it solves. > Seems reasonable. Regards, -- Michel -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
