gst-plugins-good0.10 package

[David I. Lehn]

* Sebastien Bacher <seb128 at debian.org> [2005-12-20T06:38:23-0500]:
> > Why should sinks get special packaging and not sources or codecs?
> 
> No real reason, I misunderstood Lo?c on IRC. We are going to keep
> alsa/esd splitted because they are arch dependant/grab a sound server.
> I'll move the other to misc again.
> 

Ah, I forgot about the arch issues.  Arch specific plugins should
certainly be in their own pacakges.


> > Cons of uber package:
> > - Bloat
> > - Lots of deps, may not need many of them
> > - Bloat
> > - Must deflect users complaining about deps
> > - One broken lib can cause whole package to be uninstallable
> 
> I don't think it's that bloated. What Depends of -good-misc seems
> excessive to you? They are mainly small libs with no Depends. For -base
> we splitted to -gnomevfs/-x for the Depends issue. The broken lib
> argument is not really one. If one of the binary package has a such
> issue we have to do a source upload anyway. And it only affects unstable
> users by definition.
> 

It's a little less bloated now with the multiple plugin packages.  The
overall effect with all the lib packages is a bit of bloat.  A classic
argument is things like C64 sound file plugins.  I don't even know where
to get source files for that.  No offense to the C64 crew out there. ;)

Yeah sure the lib breakage is for unstable people only but it still can
be annoying when it happens.


> > Pros of uber package:
> > - Disks bigger and networks faster these days. (kind of lame argument)
> > - Packaging is _much_ easier.  I burned out on it.
> 
> I don't think gst-plugins0.8 package is harder. I mean the
> infrastructure is in place, you just have to modify the control/rules
> files and to put a .install for the new package.
> 

Yeah, around the time it got easier and all the fantastic stability
stuff started to happen upstream, I was burned out. ;)

-dave