On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 11:42:39AM +0900, Miles Bader wrote: > David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Well, if foo depends on foo-data, and foo-data depends on foo, I find > > it really hard to see the point of splitting the two into distinctive > > packages... > > It could be useful if foo-data is very large, but changes rarely, > whereas foo is small, but changes more often. Then if the user updates > frequently, he will usually only have to download a new foo, not > foo-data.
That relies on the fact that the user knows that foo-data doesn't contain any updates, and that (s)he manually inhibits the package manager from downloading the updated version of foo-data, since foo-data will be available in a new version too, even if it does not contain any real changes. Regards: David -- /) David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> /) Rime on my window (\ // ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ // Diamond-white roses of fire // \) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ (/ Beautiful hoar-frost (/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
