On Sat, 2007-12-01 at 07:49 -0800, Christopher Stone wrote: > On Dec 1, 2007 4:33 AM, Leszek Matok <Lam@xxxxxx> wrote: > > Dnia 2007-12-01, o godz. 13:11:41 Patrice Dumas <pertusus@xxxxxxx> napisał(a): > > > > > A standard policy is not desirable in my opinion. More subpackages > > > may allow for better granularity, but the user has to install > > > and sometime know about more packages. There is also added > > > packaging complexity. So definitely the packager choice. > > There's also more metadata, so even slower yum (not that you can actually > > notice at this point), some people might even think it's a bad idea at the > > repository/distribution level. > > > > On the other hand, subpackages are the only way to escape the > > infamous "dependency hell" that's still scaring some people away from Fedora. > > This is an *extremely* important topic. > > Let's face it, if Fedora wants to have any hope of becoming a base > distribution for all other distributions, then all optional requires > will need to be split into sub-packages. To be fair, some software works on a model like this, and some does not. Trying to force software which is not designed in such a fashion into a sub-packaged hierarchy is a good way to get a headache. Not that I disagree, simply that it isn't really possible to put up hard and fast guidelines that say "thou shalt subpackage everything to ensure minimal dependencies". For example, a motivated SIG could go through and suggest subpackage improvements, where relevant, without needing to have explicit guidelines forcing it. ~spot -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
