Re: splitting source packages

Am Samstag, 29. November 2014, 10:49:34 schrieb Martin Steigerwald: > Am Donnerstag, 27. November 2014, 16:50:12 schrieb Neil Williams: > > On Thu, 27 Nov 2014 16:24:12 +0100 > > > > Matthias Urlichs wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > Neil Williams: > > > > By having separate source packages, a stable

Re: splitting source packages

Am Donnerstag, 27. November 2014, 16:50:12 schrieb Neil Williams: > On Thu, 27 Nov 2014 16:24:12 +0100 > > Matthias Urlichs wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Neil Williams: > > > By having separate source packages, a stable API becomes mandatory. > > > > You're correct in that it is easier to keep an API

Re: splitting source packages

Hi, Neil Williams writes: > Atually, not particularly thinking of systemd at this point, but in > *general* there is a good technical advantage to this approach: > migrations & dependency control. It avoids the "fingers in every pie" > problem common to a number of source packages in Debian. > [.

Re: splitting source packages

On Thu, 27 Nov 2014 16:24:12 +0100 Matthias Urlichs wrote: > Hi, > > Neil Williams: > > By having separate source packages, a stable API becomes mandatory. > > You're correct in that it is easier to keep an API stable when you > have separate repositories. But that is not a hard requirement. Th

Re: splitting source packages

Hi, Neil Williams: > By having separate source packages, a stable API becomes mandatory. You're correct in that it is easier to keep an API stable when you have separate repositories. But that is not a hard requirement. There are other ways to keep APIs stable. Like, for instance, publishing a sp

Re: splitting source packages

On Thu, 27 Nov 2014 14:28:01 +0100 Matthias Urlichs wrote: > Hi, > > Martin Steigerwald: > > But I think for most of the people that dislike systemd this is the > > main concern: systemd is a lot of system building blocks in *one* > > repository and *one* debian package and while they may be > >