Bill Mitchell writes ("Re: bogo-1.2-1 released"):
> From a user/installer point of view, it seems unhelpful to combine them.
> It sounds like this would hide theinfo for each small package which would
> be available as Description/Extended description if each was packaged
> separately.I disagree. I think that with something like this it would be better to say in the description that the package was a set of miscellaneous utilities in the application area X and then give a list in the next paragraph. Packing these very small program separately doesn't buy us very much - they're so small that the dpkg per-package overhead is nearly as much as the files inside them. People probably won't object to installing a few tens of K of scripts to get the one 3K script they want. > Also, presuming that it's possible to identify one of the > included items in the digest package as desired, it sounds like this > would make it necessary to all the undesired items in the digest > package to get one which is desired. Yes, but they're small and inoffensive, so it doesn't matter. > > I know they're distributed separately as upstream source, but having > > many of these small packages is really going to clutter up the > > installation procedure. > > That's certainly true, though. More clutter in dselect for the user > to sort through, more packages to be added to the long list which > dselect churns through every time it's asked to install a package. > It's a problem, but this doesn''t sound like an effective solution. I'm confused. Here you're making my point for me. If this is more of your file-granularity stuff I don't want to hear it, I'm afraid. Ian.
