On Mon, May 09, 2022 at 07:16:59PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > > Even if that consensus does not exist, there is probably consensus > > that native packages are a poor match for large packages (because of > > the inefficiency of making small updates to the packaging of native > > packages), > Do you mean large packages with a separate upstream existence, or > large packages in general? I don't think there's such a consensus for > large packages in general: if Debian is the canonical place for a > particular package to be released (e.g., as is true for dpkg), then it > doesn't seem like it would be worth the overhead of making two > releases, one upstream and one for packaging, whenever updating that > package. speaking as the debian-edu-artwork maintainer, which at one point in time was a >50mb sized native package: it's pretty annoying to upload 50 or more megabytes for a 2 byte fix of a maintainer script.
--
cheers,
Holger
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C
⠈⠳⣄
Humans despise their genitals so much they often use them as metaphors for
humans they dislike.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
