On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 04:59:23PM +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > Le 22/09/2015 16:44, Markus Koschany a écrit : > > > I agree with Thorsten that this would imply a packaging overhead for > > only a little gain. Although I think that splitting the documentation > > would be cleaner, it is probably not worth the effort for a few KB. No > > strong preferences from my side though. > > Thank you for the feedback. I'm suggesting this change mainly for a > better separation of concerns, the space saved is obviously > insignificant. For example a separated policy makes it possible to > upload an updated default-jre package in experimental and then publish > policy changes in unstable without waiting for java-common to transition > to unstable.
I also believe the benefits outweight the cost of having another package in the archive. We may want to iterate over policy frequently, and do so without triggering upgrades for every installed copy of java-common. In that case, a separate package may take a bit more disk on the mirrors, but it could also result in less overall network bandwidth. It would also be nice if the policy package was named something obvious, like java-policy. :) Cheers, tony
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
