On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 12:15:19AM +0100, Georg Schwarz wrote:
> > How is the reverse any better?
> > 
> > If you don't download the sources for the requested package first, you
> > could spend time building all the dependant packages, only to find out
> > that the one you actually wanted is broken/unavailable.
> how likely is it that the source is unavailable, while all the packackes'
> sources it depends on are available?

In many cases, a lot of the dependant pkgs will be mainstream libraries
that are used by more than one package. That makes it more likely that
they would be noticed if they broke.

> > Since the build time in this case will almost always exceed the download
> > time in the current setup, the current setup seems better to me.
> it depends what is more "costly" to you: building time or download
> volume/space. If the latter does not matter, I agree that the current
> scheme fits best. If it does however, the other approach would make more
> sense.

Yes, each way has it's own issues, so I think that any argument to
change the status quo would need to be pretty convincing.

-- 
David Maxwell, david@vex.net|david@maxwell.net --> Unless you have a solution
when you tell them things like that, most people collapse into a gibbering, 
unthinking mass.  This is the same reason why you probably don't tell your 
boss about everything you read on BugTraq!    - Signal 11