How to contact OpenGL package maintainer (where is Sven?)
dagitj at gmail.com
Sun Apr 17 21:39:02 CEST 2011
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 10:51 AM, Joachim Breitner <mail at joachim-breitner.de
> Am Sonntag, den 17.04.2011, 14:37 -0300 schrieb Felipe Almeida Lessa:
> > On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Joachim Breitner
> > <mail at joachim-breitner.de> wrote:
> > > work of 1 module in 10 packages. The new OpenGL packages have split out
> > > lots of small packages (OpenGLRaw, StateVar, Tensor, ObjectName).
> > > review this and see if you can somehow lessen the package number
> > > inflation before your version enters the platform.
> > At least StateVar is very useful outside OpenGL.
> I’m not saying it is not useful. But there is very little code and most
> of it is rather, well, trivial. So if you need the functionality in one
> of your packages only, then you can put it there. If you need it in on
> collection of multiple packages with one package dominating the
> dependency tree, then put it there.
> A package of its own for these few lines is only required if
> * Package A and package B provide an _interface_ in terms of StateVar
> * Neither A depends on B nor B depends on A
> * There will be a package C that not only uses the interface of both A
> and B but also combines them, e.g. really requires that the same type is
> used in both the interfaces.
> Also, small packages without external dependencies can be combined in
> one package without much loss. E.g. a package opengl-utils (or some
> better name) that provides all of StateVar, Tensor, ObjectName would do
> the job equally well.
> I know that its tempting to have very fine-grained Cabal packages,
> because its so cheap to put them on Hackage and leave it to
> cabal-install to install take care of them. Unfortunately, it doesn’t
> scale on the Distribution side very well – and we are already trying
> hard to keep the per-package maintenance cost down.
In this specific case, I'll do what I can to clean things up but your
request makes me pause and think that the debian packaging for cabal
packages is not automated enough. As haskell developers it seems a little
odd to me that we need to consider the cost of creating new packages for the
sake of debian. I like debian, so please don't take that the wrong way :)
Thanks for your input!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Libraries