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.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
