|
From: | Adam Faiz |
Subject: | Preferring packages with smaller closures as package inputs (Was: Packages grow, no longer fit on a 💾) |
Date: | Wed, 18 Jan 2023 14:58:33 +0000 |
Should packages with smaller closures be preferred as package inputs, in the case that multiple packages implement the same interface?Hello! Over the course of a few years, the size of our packages has apparently kept growing. Example: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
For example, pkgconf is much simpler compared to pkg-config but implements the same interface. Should it be used as an input for all packages that need pkg-config, through a pkg-config symlink in the pkgconf package for complete compatibility? If not, why? Are there more important factors to consider than bootstrapping complexity?
In contrast, pkg-config has glib as a bundled dependency when it should be unbundled. There's probably a circular dependency that needs to be resolved but it needs to be done.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |