Comment # 7 on bug 1231065 from Stefan Hundhammer

Side discussions that need to be answered first so we can focus on the main
topic:

(In reply to Fxzx mic from comment #5)
> I have set Severity to enhancement, which indicates that this is not a bug
> report.

Of course it is, and the same rules apply: You whould explain what you see as a
problem, or in this case, as the enhancement.


> I don't know your role in maintaining the Chromium package. 

Nor is it in any way, shape or form relevant. The points that I made are
relevant, and you never answered them.



> If you're just a user, you shouldn't really care about this issue 
> because it's actually not related to the user. 

I am not "just a user", but anyway, wes, it is related: Where the end user used
to see just one single "chromium" package in the package-related tools (YaST,
zypper; and more), now there would be four of them.

And inevitably, users get confused what to install; even more so if (like you
proposed) there are several different GUI front-ends (Qt 5 and Qt 6; plus
"headless"). They tend to ask in user forums, and the answers tend to be
inconclusive.

Package splits come at a cost.


> This is something that maintainers should consider.
> If you are the maintainer, I would say that there are not so many meaningful
> things in this world, only whether you want to do them or not. As a
> maintainer, if you don't want to do this, then wait for the next maintainer
> to do this.

Good luck finding a voluneer maintainer for a package as complex as this. And
anyway, given the importance of one of the few FOSS Internet browsers in
today's IT world, reliable support may be business critical for SUSE, so the
choice for the main maintainer narrows down to a SUSE employee.


> As for what you said about "sanctify my machine", 

Sanitize, not sanctify. No need to declare the machine a holy thing. ;-)


> I'm not an extremist. I'm
> just suggesting how to make it more reasonable, not more extreme. The more
> extreme suggestion would be to separate the GTK part as a package, the
> language part as a package, and the documentation as a package. Obviously, I
> didn't make these suggestions.

OK, then we can agree on that point at least.


> (In reply to Stefan Hundhammer from comment #4)
> > [... Ubuntu / Snap ...]
> > 
> > There are many ways to do it, and not all of them make sense; or at least
> > have enough advantages to justify the constant extra work.
> 
> You can’t compare your job to excrement to determine which is superior, so
                                excrement??
> such a comparison is pointless.


Now to the main point:

> I don't know what kind of advantage is considered enough for you, but for
> me, 'this is more reasonable' is enough.

"This is more reasonable" is an opinion, not a factual argument.

So, your implied suggestion is to follow Fedora's example to split up Chromium
into several subpackages. But you never even once explained what you see as the
benefits to offset the downsides. This is what is missing in this whole
discussion.