Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tor - Anonymizing overlay network for TCP (The onion router) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=175433 ------- Additional Comments From enrico.scholz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-09-21 14:12 EST ------- > - We've never had a policy for systematically splitting packages Exactly, there is no policy which says when to split a package. Until then, it is packager's choice whether he splits or does not split. My choice is, to split. > - If we were to use your strict splitting policy on all Fedora packages, > the total number of packages in Fedora would be multiplied by 3 or > 4. There's an inherent cost associated with increasing the number of > packages at the yum/rpm level. Is this cost measured in KB, seconds, used lines on display or bananas? Wouldn't they be outweighted by lesser dependencies and a smaller system? E.g. monolithic 'tor' might bring in initscripts, lvm2, udev... while a splitted tor brings only tor-core. Splitting seems to reduce inherent costs on yum/rpm level for me... Splitting will perhaps increase needed blocksize (1-4K) in the repository by one or two. The Used diskspace on the repository is cheap. Much cheaper than the bloat introduced by unneeded dependencies. > - Simplicity. Keep It Simple. Ok, I can remove the initscript stuff completely and provide single 'tor-lsb' and 'tor-initng' packages. Would just add two more reviews and people would complain that 'tor' main package does not have an initscript. As a compromise: I will keep -lsb in main package (as is) and remove only the -minit and -initng part. Would you accept this? > - Consistency to me is an important issue. What would bring you consistency here? Using 'yum install tor' installs consistently a 'tor' daemon with the appropriate initscripts; both with the splitted and bloated variant. > Consistency across other distributions for second. Package is for Fedora Extras; I do not request a review for Debian or Mandriva. > Not even 2M in size. Size of package does not matter for dependencies issues. A 20 byte perl script can bring in 50 MB of perl. > - Your refusal to collaborate with reviewers is hurting Fedora. Come on. Your refusal to accept views of packagers is hurting Fedora. ========= > 1) most, if not all other packages work like that. In Germany we have a proverb: "millions of flies can not err: shit tastes great". When you are new it might be good idea to follow the masses. But at some time you should turn on the brain and think yourself. > 2) you are insisting on custom non-FE requirements Ok, as written above, I will remove the -initng and -minit subpackage when this helps. I really do not want to continue this meta-discussion which consists only of personal views and unproved statements like "entire community". -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review