Subject: Re: modular X.org work
To: Hubert Feyrer <email@example.com>
From: Julio M. Merino Vidal <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 10/16/2005 11:10:35
On 10/16/05, Hubert Feyrer <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Oct 2005, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
> >> Why not have ~one big "X" package?
> >> The list above reminds me of GNOME...
> > It should be a lot better than GNOME.
> > Some of this will never or rarely change. So when you want to update, y=
> > only need to update one (or few packages).
> > For packagers and for end-users it will make it a lot easier and faster=
> > update in the long run. ... That's my hope :)
> See "GNOME". :)
Yes, there are a lot of packages in GNOME, but IMHO, it's better. Everythi=
is more modular, which is a good thing for applications: they can have a cl=
dependency tree without pulling in "bloat". E.g., you can have a GNOME "se=
that only needs console functionality without depending on the graphical
libraries. (In KDE, you'd depend on "kdelibs", thus pulling in a lot
stuff.) I guess this is why e.g., Debian, turn all kde* packages into meta
packages and provides all their contents as small and individual packages.
(The only "problem" comes during updates... where you have to do a lot more
packages than otherwise, and which is a somewhat slow process in
NetBSD/pkgsrc due to build failures, PLIST updates, etc... you know ;-)
Julio M. Merino Vidal <firstname.lastname@example.org>
The NetBSD Project - http://www.NetBSD.org/