Re: Re: why bloated packages are bad (acaseforsplittinguplarge packages)

Greg Beaver wrote:

After considering the arguments, I see no convincing case for any negative consequences with the unbundling, so I will continue as originally planned.

But the point remains that any packages used by the PEAR installer will require a full PEAR release style QA before being available without a forced install. To me this solves the issue. However it obviously deminishes the ability to make these releases available, because I the effort is quite large and I can see that anyone willing to QA these important packages will get annoyed with testing after 2-3 point releases. I do have a question regarding the compatible stuff. It seems to me that it would make sense for users to be able to define certain packages as "protected" that only allow updates if the necessary compatibilities are "claimed" in any dependent package or require a force. This could be a general feature the user can set for any package. The point being here that is does not make sense for a dependency to either use or not use the compatible tag, but that it should be the package that has the dependency to require the compatible tag to be set appropriately. I dont remember reading how that particular aspect is handled. The important point/question here is though. Can a simple screw up with a compatible tag (cut and paste) bring us the old issues again? So I make a new relase, forget to change the compatible tag and suddenly I claim a compatibility that I never really tested. I guess mistakes happen, but I see them as being less likely in the case its a single package. regards, Lukas