On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 08:18:49PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> "D. Joe Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Package: zephyr-clients
> > Version: 2.1.20010518.SNAPSHOT-11.2
> > Severity: wishlist
> >
> >
> > Please put xzwrite into its own package separate from (but
> > perhaps depending on) those in zephyr-clients.
> >
> > xzwrite is the only binary in this package with X Windows System
> > dependencies. Apart from these dependencies, one can do a
> > reasonably small install of this and related software (kerberos,
> > hesiod, openafs...) usable via a text console.
>
> I just wrote the following:
>
> : zwgc also (obviously) has X dependencies, although not so much as the
> : abomination that is xzwrite.
Ah, yes, I had missed those.
> : Although I admit the X libraries seem to have grown a little bit, I think
> : this sort of disk space conservation has been a waste of time for quite a
> : while now.
"small" needn't refer only to disk space, though it is an issue
in older or embedded systems.
There's also the general principle of installing just what one
intends to use, which decreases ones security exposure,
decreases the update burden, and so on.
> : If they really offend you that much, you have rm.
Offend? I was surprised, and then disappointed, when I first
saw the situation with this, but learning how integral X was to
the rest of Project Athena, the integration now makes more sense
to me. Not that my emotional state to the whole situation is of
much relevance, but since you brought it up.
> But before I tag this as wontfix, I'm going to give splitting xzwrite out
> or possibly dropping it entirely some thought.
I appreciate the pause for reflection.
Just to feed that a little, I'll note that NetBSD seems to offer
a package named something like x11-links or whatever that
nominally satisfy dependencies for something like this, without
actually providing the X functionality.
Seemed to me that asking to split this package a bit further
would be the easier sell ;-)
> The dependencies on libX11, libSM, and libICE aren't going
> away, though.
Again, good point.
> Still, you do have rm.
Hmm. You're suggesting that one remove files otherwise under
the control of the package management system? Seems like a
dodgy move to me, but then I'm not an expert on Debian policy.
> And gcc.
True. And all the package management stuff, too, if I ever can
wrap my head around it.
Anyway, this seemed like the proper way to start trying to
tackle this. If you don't make the requested packaging change,
it's not like I'm going to go postal or anything.
Again, thanks for considering it.
Regards,
--
D. Joe Anderson, Asst. Sci. 2252 Molecular Biology Bldg
Biochem, Biophys, & Mol Bio Iowa State Univ, Ames, IA 50010
How to help someone use a computer
http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/how-to-help.html
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
