Sebastian H. wrote: > > Why regroup qasmixer and qasconfig into one package? Wouldn't it be > > better having them Recommend each other? It doesn't seem like an > > improvement forcing users to install both tools instead of giving them > > the choice. But maybe I'm missing something. > > The short answer is, it makes package maintenance much easier and > is less error prone.
I see the point of having one source package for all the tools, but you could still make several binary packages from there (as alsa-tools does, though not for every single utility I must admit). > A somewhat longer explanation includes: > > 1. All QasTools share certain amounts of code. But it's not worth it > creating a library package (with all the hassles) for that. > > 2. All QasTools share a single localization database (app_xy.qm). > It's a pain to organize translations for a small application. > A single translation file for a small number of applications is > much easier to deal with for translators and maintainers. > > 3. QasTools may grow by a few applications. It's very likely that > potential users will install/use more than one of them anyway. > The applications themselves are not very large. > > 4. This goes in the tradition of alsa-tools, alsa-tools-gui and > alsa-utils. They all bring a small number of applications wich > cover certain aspects of ALSA. > > I hope this makes it a bit more clear. Those seem like perfectly valid reasons, and it does make it clearer, thanks. Might be worth including the gist of it in the debian/changelog, so that users who wonder about the change can find the reason easily. Cheers, -- Benoît Knecht -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111213155146.gb2...@marvin.lan
