On 14.07.2019 02:36, Greg Troxel wrote: > Kamil Rytarowski <n54%gmx.com@localhost> writes: > >> A user that wants to install git (and nothing else) shall just type >> 'pkgin install git'. > > But from my viewpoint, gitk is part of git. So the git package only > contains things that are part of git, built from the upstream git > release tarball. > I can speak based on my pre-pkgsrc packaging (where I did 10x more packaging than in pkgsrc). Whenever something is part of the base package it is usually good to split something out whenever that part is independent enough and requires additional dependencies or is under more restrictive license. In other cases like an IRC client and its plugins, splitting things up makes extra work for a packager and frustrates users as whenever they delete the base package they have leftovers from leaf software. In my opinion git and gitk is the case where splitting makes perfect sense as it is distinct and heavy with extra dependencies. Nowadays git tends to be installed in headless environments as one of the first packages, sometimes out of few. >> Right now git installs gitk and git documentation. If a git user (like >> me) would want to install them, he or she would search how gitk is named >> searching for it, like git-gitk or git-gui.. same for the documentation. > > While I see reasonable opinions differing about gitk being included, the > idea that man pages are split off is probably unique to git and with > very little if any precedent. (I mean "man pages", not "1000 page latex > documentation".) > >> The package name shall be obvious at the first sight and argument that >> DESCR is sufficient against user-friendliness. We could postulate to >> remove DESCR as checking PLIST or distfiles is always enough. > > That's not fair. DESCR is explicitly what is supposed to describe the > package - that's the entire point of the file. And you are defining > "obvious" to mean "what I expect". It's quite clear from the discussion > that different people have different impressions of obvious; that's the > root of this issue. > Expecting users to read DESCR in the context of installing 500-1500 packages in an average desktop environment (let's assume 50-100 in a server one) is not realistic. > We have had a number of people comment. I think the numbers of wanting > it to change and wanting it to remain are similar. Almost always, there > are a large number of people content with the situation who don't speak > up. I lean fairly strongly against churn, so in my view similar numbers > isn't a good enough reason for a rototill. > > My impression is that the thing that upsets people is > install git > end up with tcl/tk and needing X > > and I have heard zero complaints about > > but I got man pages with my command line tools when I used pkgin (or > some other binary package repository). I didn't want those. > > I got the git-subtree command installed, and it's taking up 32 kB. > > So "git" should include man pages, and might as well include the contrib > package. Packages are expected by almost everyone to contain man pages > for commands they contain. > > So if we just unhooked git-gitk from "git" > > there would be no rototilling (no rename/pivot) > > people who install "git" still get man pages, fulfilling the > expectation that installed commands have man pages > > people who install "git" will not get tcl/tk and need X > > people who really don't want man pages because they want the command > line tools bare on some minimal system can continue to install > git-base, which is appropriate because they are doing something > slightly off the normal plan. As Oskar noted, we have a large number > of foo-base for restricted subsets. But I don't think many others if > any omit man pages. > > people who want gitk can trivially add it > > > I'd like to separate discussion of unhooking gitk from more radical > changes like removing man pages from the installation of "git". So: > > > Please speak up if you object to dropping git-gitk as a dependency of > the git metapackage. I am assuming that everyone worried that "git" is > too much will like this change, and I am hoping that the people who > mostly like the current "git" package won't mind much. > Keeping devel/git-base as it is and unhooking gitk from devel/git is a good compromise. I have no particular opinion on git-contrib it can stay as a dependency of devel/git.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature