Proliferation of small packages

[David Cheney]

Apart from everything inside the utils/* can be moved into one package, I
have no other examples at this time.

My meta comment would be when considering writing new code, don't
automatically try to namespace it with a package.




On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 4:11 PM, John Arbash Meinel
<john at arbash-meinel.com>wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2013-05-30 10:08, David Cheney wrote:
> > I don't see how reusability requires splitting everything out into
> > a host of tiny little packages.
> >
> > Dave (who is still upset about having not one, but a namespace of
> > utils packages)
> >
>
> Can you give concrete examples of how you think it could look, rather
> than just saying you don't like what exists today?
>
> John
> =:->
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (Cygwin)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAlGm7YcACgkQJdeBCYSNAANVFgCgqTd08ODYNdeV/WDk1kfvEUDY
> rI0AoNACbkTH5qRgQr8BB8AMblcmSpSt
> =uNQu
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/juju-dev/attachments/20130530/48fe9414/attachment.html>