Michał Górny posted on Fri, 31 Aug 2012 10:01:09 +0200 as excerpted: > On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 00:12:53 +0000 (UTC) > Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > >> Various people have in fact expressed a desire to REDUCE the number of >> packages in @system, for various reasons including both the parallel >> merge penalty and the bloat on reduced systems. In practice, there's >> not a lot of positive movement on actually reducing @system, but at >> minimum, unless there's *NO* other choice and in this case there >> clearly is, we shouldn't be ADDING packages to @system. >> >> For that reason, while I do see the reason why some would like >> pkg-config added to @system, the whole idea's pretty much a >> non-starter
> But you're aware that cost of pkgconf is very little? Not really, when it's a step in the opposite direction from an intended goal. The first step toward any goal is to stop going backward, and that's exactly what this would be. We need a smaller @system, not a larger one, and while the add would be easy, undoing it years later when it's yet another bit of the tangled web woven, would be *MUCH* more difficult. Just don't do it; don't go backward; don't add to the problem instead of reducing it. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
