| 1 |
Michał Górny posted on Fri, 31 Aug 2012 10:01:09 +0200 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 00:12:53 +0000 (UTC) |
| 4 |
> Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
>> Various people have in fact expressed a desire to REDUCE the number of |
| 7 |
>> packages in @system, for various reasons including both the parallel |
| 8 |
>> merge penalty and the bloat on reduced systems. In practice, there's |
| 9 |
>> not a lot of positive movement on actually reducing @system, but at |
| 10 |
>> minimum, unless there's *NO* other choice and in this case there |
| 11 |
>> clearly is, we shouldn't be ADDING packages to @system. |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> For that reason, while I do see the reason why some would like |
| 14 |
>> pkg-config added to @system, the whole idea's pretty much a |
| 15 |
>> non-starter |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> But you're aware that cost of pkgconf is very little? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Not really, when it's a step in the opposite direction from an intended |
| 20 |
goal. The first step toward any goal is to stop going backward, and |
| 21 |
that's exactly what this would be. We need a smaller @system, not a |
| 22 |
larger one, and while the add would be easy, undoing it years later when |
| 23 |
it's yet another bit of the tangled web woven, would be *MUCH* more |
| 24 |
difficult. Just don't do it; don't go backward; don't add to the problem |
| 25 |
instead of reducing it. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 29 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 30 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives