On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 09:44:33AM +0900, Josh Triplett wrote: > However, whether we fix (1) or not, (2) needs to stop. It's completely > ridiculous to go to an upstream and say "your package is tiny, could you > combine it with other unrelated tiny packages to make a less tiny > package?".
Yes, that's correct, but that doesn't (in my book) imply that (2) does indeed need to stop. It's perfectly possible and reasonable for _Debian_ to make that aggregation; we can create a package "node-small-libraries" or some such which would "Provides: node-undefined" and other similarly small libraries. Given the fact that they are indeed all very small, there's little to no downside to doing so. If the sheer number of these small libraries ever starts actually becoming a problem, we can then still split it up -- and the "Provides:" header should then make sure (if Debian maintainers have done their job correctly) that dependencies don't suddenly start breaking. -- It is easy to love a country that is famous for chocolate and beer -- Barack Obama, speaking in Brussels, Belgium, 2014-03-26
