[M3devel] package groups question

[Jay K]

[truncated right about here..]
 

If we do this, it is probably a good idea to also include sysutils in min.
 
 
But it actually goes both ways sort of. That is, if you use old sysutils, then cm3 cannot take a dependency on sysutils changes. But new sysutils can depend on new libm3/m3core. Again, it isn't exactly scientific.
 
 
> 
>
> WRT#13, not sure what you mean by "sort of". What are the caveats?
 

I don't remember what I was thinking, but I can tell you that "officially" there is nothing beyond "std". "std" == "all".
Now, actually, we might be missing a few.

 
"std" is more like everything we know to compile.

 
For example m3-pkgtools is missing from "std".
But if you get it to compile, we'll add it.

I believe that is the intent.

 
Perhaps perhaps perhaps there should be a group called "rare" or "esoteric" and "std" would not include those but all would.
 

Actually you know there is a big tension between fine grained decomposition of systems into small testable fast to install pieces, and enabling small systems to be put together, and shipping things separately, vs. larger more monolithic systems which are often easier to reason about because you generally only take a coherent whole and various pieces don't have to adapt to the presence or absence of others, you either have everything or nothing. This leads to bloat, but it does have advantages.

 
 
- Jay