Falk - On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 03:02:41PM +0100, Falk Hueffner wrote: > On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 10:39:34PM +0100, Rafael Laboissiere wrote: > > You are absolutely right. I will consider producing two independent library > > packages, one with MathPROG support and the other without. [chop] > > Just for the record, I don't think this is a good idea. It makes the > package more complicated, users have to waste time with checking out > what they need, while 99.99% will not care about 5M of disk space that > cost about 0.1 cent.
Let's see: a new 500 Gig disk costs about US$100. 5 Meg is 1e-5 of that, or 0.1 cent. Your arithmetic checks. I guess you have never operated an obsolete machine on its last legs, still doing useful work on last-decades technology, with its disks at 99% full, where upgrading disks would also mean upgrading the disk controller, and maybe installing a new kernel to support that controller. Cost of each extra 5 Meg is zero, until the cumulative effect forces an upgrade, which costs both real money and system downtime. A Debian system where sensible package granularity lets people install what they need: priceless. I am an Octave user, and only install libglpk because it is an Octave dependency. I haven't yet done any linear programming within Octave, but it's nice to know that will work if I ever need it. Does adding MathPROG to libglpk benefit me in any way? I honestly don't know, I haven't done the research. - Larry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
