Hi, On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 11:01:00AM +0200, Jindrich Novy wrote: > you may have noticed Oracle released db-4.6.18 recently. The update is > now prepared in CVS, old db-4.5.20 is now moved to compat-db so the new > db4 is ready to hit rawhide soon. > > I want to announce a change I made in the new db4, that may affect > you from the packaging POV if your package is dependent on db4. It is > that I moved all the C++ stuff to db4-cxx and db4-cxx-devel subpackages > to reduce dependency bloat (#220484). > > If you have any proposals/objections related to the update, please speak up. I can understand the splitting of the runtime bits, but why split the *-devel package?

Evening folks, On Thu, 09 Aug 2007, Tom spot Callaway wrote: > On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 14:27 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 11:01:00AM +0200, Jindrich Novy wrote: > > > I want to announce a change I made in the new db4, that may affect > > > you from the packaging POV if your package is dependent on db4. It is > > > that I moved all the C++ stuff to db4-cxx and db4-cxx-devel subpackages > > > to reduce dependency bloat (#220484). > > > > I can understand the splitting of the runtime bits, but why split the > > *-devel package? > > +1. Splitting the -devel package is a rather significant alteration, for > little benefit (and shouldn't increase dependency bloat). thousands of -devel packages is in my not so humble opinion what the reporter of bug #220484 would like to see. And I don't believe, there's any real benefit of doing so, so please avoid it. We're living in the 3rd year- thousand and I don't want to calculate what 5 MB of disk space could cost.

On Saturday 08 September 2007, Michel Salim wrote: > On 11/08/2007, Robert Scheck <robert(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote: > > > thousands of -devel packages is in my not so humble opinion what the > > reporter of bug #220484 would like to see. And I don't believe, there's > > any real benefit of doing so, so please avoid it. We're living in the 3rd > > year- thousand and I don't want to calculate what 5 MB of disk space > > could cost. > > Thirded. Consider that good ol' Slackware does not even split > development files out of their main packages! 5MB is actually pretty much if you consider setups on space constrained media such as live CDs, small flash disks etc. There have been other related lengthy discussions about things such as trimming package changelogs which would result in the same order of magnitude space savings when installed, so there are people who do care about numbers like that.

On Sunday 09 September 2007, Robert Scheck wrote: > On Sat, 08 Sep 2007, Ville Skyttä wrote: > > On Saturday 08 September 2007, Michel Salim wrote: > > > On 11/08/2007, Robert Scheck <robert(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote: > > > > thousands of -devel packages is in my not so humble opinion what the > > > > reporter of bug #220484 would like to see. And I don't believe, > > > > there's any real benefit of doing so, so please avoid it. We're > > > > living in the 3rd year- thousand and I don't want to calculate what 5 > > > > MB of disk space could cost. > > > > > > Thirded. Consider that good ol' Slackware does not even split > > > development files out of their main packages! > > > > 5MB is actually pretty much if you consider setups on space constrained > > media such as live CDs, small flash disks etc. There have been other > > related lengthy discussions about things such as trimming package > > changelogs which would result in the same order of magnitude space > > savings when installed, so there are people who do care about numbers > > like that. > > Ehem. I talked about 5 MB for splitting the -devel package itself. Since > when are db4-devel packages installed on live CDs, small flash disks etc.? > And no, it's not the same. So please don't bring my argumentation out of > context! That wasn't my intention, sorry if I offended you. Your later (than your mailing list post) comment in #220484 seems very much opposed to the whole split and doesn't mention devel packages at all. Michel's reply above (which as the quote indicators show, is primarily what I replied to) seems to me to be using Slackware as a proof-of-concept argument that not caring about size overhead of development files in packages in general works just fine. And I don't actually see a db4-cxx-devel in the packages tree nor in the db4.spec CVS history.