Alberto Luaces <alua...@udc.es> writes: > Cyril Brulebois writes:
Thanks for re-including me in the discussion! > It was that light on amd64, but on the most popular platform, i386, it > has always been that large and nobody argued before. Check, for example, > lenny's version > > http://packages.debian.org/lenny/libopenscenegraph7 All the same, it is now the 77th largest package in squeeze on amd64 up from 900th or so; most of the packages that are still larger consist of data, documentation, or debugging information (to which the newly added functionality strikes me as at least somewhat analogous). Yes, disk is typically cheap these days; nevertheless, there is a limit to how many packages can take up quite so much of it, and library packages in particular should respect that limit. > I think the key point is not that we are doing things differently, but > doing the same we did for the most popular platform since several years ago. Understood, but perhaps nobody looked so closely at the time; when a package is large from the outset, it may be more common to assume it's necessarily so, whereas in this case the size *change* caught my attention. > Anyway next OSG release won't bundle osgIntrospection anymore, so in the > future, it will be a package on its own. Glad to hear it; when that time comes, please make the dependency on the new package a Recommends: at most. Thanks! -- Aaron M. Ucko, KB1CJC (amu at alum.mit.edu, ucko at debian.org) http://www.mit.edu/~amu/ | http://stuff.mit.edu/cgi/finger/?...@monk.mit.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
