On Wednesday, 27 April 2016 7:20:54 PM AEST Balasankar C wrote:
> It is a balance between following standards and common sense. If the
> package is used mainly as a library, name it ruby-foo. If it is mainly
> used as an application, name it foo. Outliers, as always, will occur - but
> in negligible quantities.
>
> As Antonio pointed out, almost all applications with worthy popularity and
> considerable implementational architecture, probably have a library
> component.
>
> Splitting packages, that too including the small and trivial ones, doesn't
> seem reasonable to me too. It's just an additional, unwanted burden for
> package maintainers.
True, this is all true. I think separating library and executable into
different packages is most useful for architecture-dependent binaries.
For arch-all packages it is a matter of common sense.
I agree that having a binary package merely for a few lines of code arch-all
executable is not worth it...
--
All the best,
Dmitry Smirnov.
---
Lying is, almost by definition, a refusal to cooperate with others. It
condenses a lack of trust and trustworthiness into a single act. It is both
a failure of understanding and an unwillingness to be understood. To lie is
to recoil from relationship.
-- Sam Harris
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.