This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: [ITP] libungif-4.1.0-2
- From: Lapo Luchini <lapo at lapo dot it>
- To: Robert Collins <robert dot collins at syncretize dot net>
- Cc: 'Charles Wilson' <cwilson at ece dot gatech dot edu>, cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
- Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 13:15:45 +0200
- Subject: Re: [ITP] libungif-4.1.0-2
- References: <000201c22cb8$549ac930$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>
It's not the size, it' a question of readability... for me, as a sample
user, I would strongly prefer to know "ahhh.. all it is needed is to
relibtoolize it!" instead of "urgh, it needs applying 900kb of patches!!!".
What is the issue with the patch size anyway?
Even a 900K patch will shrink massively when bz2'd, and the user doesn't
have to look at the content of the patch.
Of course this could be otherwise solved with some comments in the
libungif.README... but usually I prefer a "self documenting process"
that a "obscure process plus oducmentation".
I see the need to hame 3 packages installed minor ni respect of the
uncleariness of having a gigantic patch.
But that's me, and if everybody else thinks the other way is better I
have no problems in doing ni the gigantic-patch mode.
Lapo 'Raist' Luchini
firstname.lastname@example.org (PGP & X.509 keys available)
http://www.lapo.it (ICQ UIN: 529796)