| 1 |
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 09:54:18AM +0200, Simon Stelling wrote: |
| 2 |
> Enrico Weigelt wrote: |
| 3 |
> >For example: mplayer |
| 4 |
> >It has it's gui-less player and an gtk-based frontend in one package. |
| 5 |
> >We should split this into two packages: mplayer and gmplayer. |
| 6 |
> >The chances to get this done in the upstream *before* some major |
| 7 |
> >distro like gentoo does the split by its own are quite low. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Not quite true. In reality, they're just the same. mplayer simply checks |
| 10 |
> whether it was called as mplayer or gmplayer. So you not only have two |
| 11 |
> programs in one package, but even in one binary. Changing this behaviour |
| 12 |
> has nothing to do with packaging and is really upstream's responsibility, |
| 13 |
> IMHO. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Additionally... once you start down that path, the changes to pkgs |
| 16 |
become less then minor. Some are simple, some ain't. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Personally, I hate that approach- ignoring any political/warring |
| 19 |
idiocy, my main issue with debian is the choice to split upstream |
| 20 |
packages into multiple sub packages. Makes things a pain in the ass |
| 21 |
to what you want/need and makes for fun lock-step dependencies between |
| 22 |
the subpackages. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
~harring |
Archives