Hi,

I'm putting Aaron back in the recipients of the mail, the BTS still
doesn't Cc submitters and people replying to bugs.

Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com> (10/08/2010):
> Splitting the package would be a reasonable thing to do from the
> point of view of the package size, but IMO it's not unreasonable for
> architectures where this is enabled to have packages of this size.

I'm not sure I get your point here (extra negation?).

> CrystalSpace (another 3D engine) occuppies 90MB, perhaps because
> it's unstripped.

In which case that's just a serious bug in that package.

> On the other hand it's a burden for us packagers to maintain, for
> example to have the correct linking options in pkg-config files
> (other than the hypothetical package openscenegraph-osgwrappers
> would overwrite them).  Maybe the rest of the co-mantainers have a
> different opinion about this, though, if so they will chime in.  I
> think that it could also be confusing for developers using the
> library if they don't have to install separately osgwrappers in
> other systems but they have to do it in Debian.

Through Recommends, it would be installed by default. Even though
Suggests might be sufficient, not sure.

> As far as we can tell, the next major version of OSG (which is due
> to be released very soon) won't include osgWrappers upstream, and
> there are people interested in maintaining the source separately.
> At that point we can package it separately, and still developers
> won't be confused (or at least we won't be the ones to blame)
> because it's upstream who did force the splitting.
> 
> Does this sound reasonable to you?

Sounds like a question for squeeze+1 anyway.

> In the meantime, I will be setting the priority to whishlist, if you
> don't have any objection, but it will remain open in the case that
> there's other people wanting to express their opinion.

I'd call it a pretty serious bug for a library to eat that much disc
space. (Even the kernel is smaller!) Particularly when it used to be
much lighter, I'm calling that a regression.

Not sure what release managers would think about:
 - providing a way to get a smaller library (be it by splitting or by
   providing users with two flavours of the library),
 - or revert the Introspection entirely.

Mraw,
KiBi.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to