Message-Id: <m0wwR1S-000S1pC@inti.edu.ar>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <salvador AT natacha DOT inti DOT edu DOT ar>
From: "Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET)" <salvador AT inti DOT edu DOT ar>
Organization: INTI
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>,
        DJGPP workers <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 15:08:56 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: perl for djgpp
Precedence: bulk

Eli wrote:

> > What about creating a directory in the distribution to put these no
> > so common zip files. In this way a person that doesn't know much
> > won't download un-needed stuff.
> 
> IMHO, this will make the risk of people downloading partial packages
> even higher.
I agree. But if you split one package for some reason (and that's was the topic 
discused) I sugest to put this (very strange package) in a separated directory.

> Let me reiterate: 
I saw your previous post.

> I think splitting a package is only justifiable if
> some parts of it are used MUCH MORE 
I'm talking about these packages.

> rarely than others (read: almost
> never) 
That's the point. If the package will used "almost never" don't put it with the 
files that will be used commonly or you'll waste bandwidth.

> and are significant in size.  In all other cases, I generally
> vote for a single archive.
Some times my connection is bad enough to download 30 bytes/s I don't think is 
a good idea big packages. So I don't agree to include things that won't be used 
in the main directory.

SET
------------------------------------ 0 --------------------------------
Visit my home page: http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Vista/6552/
Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET). (Electronics Engineer)
Address: Curapaligue 2124, Caseros, 3 de Febrero
Buenos Aires, (1678), ARGENTINA
TE: +(541) 759 0013