* Roman V. Shaposhnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 19:07 +0100, Enrico Weigelt wrote: > > Hi folks, > > > > > > I'd like to vote against feeding up p9p with more things, > > instead split it up into smaller pieces. Modern distros tend > > to have quite convenient package management systems ;-p > > I really fail to see what is your problem here. There's no > rule that source code repository has to correspond 1-1 > to the binary package. In fact, it is quite common > to use a single repository for producing a number of > different binary packages.
Besides the fact that I'm not making binary packages at all, splitted / small sources make packaging a lot easier. > One of the biggest mistake an open source distro maintainer > could make is to assume that his role is trivial. It is not. If the source is well designed, it actually *is* trivial ;-p > As a software developer, not a user, I do have a different > set of constraints to optimize for. I would prefer a single > source repository for plan9port under a reasonable DSCM > so that I don't have to mix and match bits and pieces by > hand. What does prevent you from having lots of separate packages in the same SCM ? cu -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Enrico Weigelt, metux IT service -- http://www.metux.de/ cellphone: +49 174 7066481 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] skype: nekrad666 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Embedded-Linux / Portierung / Opensource-QM / Verteilte Systeme ----------------------------------------------------------------------
