[development] "Package" misuse

[Steven Jones]

Surely at the point where you start to split your module into separate  
submodules you could then introduce a package for them to go in?

Regards
Steven Jones
ComputerMinds ltd - Perfect Drupal Websites

Phone : 024 7666 7277
Mobile : 07702 131 576
Twitter : darthsteven
http://www.computerminds.co.uk

On 13 May 2010, at 18:24, Kevin Reynen <kreynen at gmail.com> wrote:

> We use 'package' with modules related to the Open Media project.  We
> also prefix our modules with om_.
>
> Another module we maintain in MERCI.  MERCI is used by most Open Media
> sites, but not only Open Media sites so I put it in its own package.
> MERCI started as a single module.  Now there are 4 submodules included
> with the MERCI project as well as additional functionality added by
> the Agreservations project and its modules.
>
> Who would to determine when several modules should be grouped into a
> package if not the developers?
>
> In my installs I have dozens of packages, many of which only have a
> single module... when the site starts.  Then the module matures, is
> broken up into submodules, other developers extend the functionality
> with additional modules.
>
> Flags (flag), Licenses (creativecommons), Statistics
> (google_analytics), Metadata (pbcore) all start this way and I can see
> how this would be annoying if you only install one module in that
> package... but the reverse issue ends up being true as people install
> more modules in the package.
>
> The same discussion could be had about when to break modules up into
> includes, submodules, multiple projects/modules...
>
> This just HAS to be left up to the developer's discretion and no
> single approach is going to make everyone happy.
>
> ---
>
> Kevin Reynen - Senior Developer
> Open Media Foundation - Putting the power of the
> media and technology in the hands of the people.
> www.openmediafoundation.org
>
> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Earnie Boyd
> <earnie at users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
>> nan wich wrote:
>>>
>>> Okay, folks, I am now on a campaign. According to "Writing .info  
>>> files
>>> (Drupal 6.x)" [http://drupal.org/node/231036], regarding the use of
>>> "package" in your .info files:
>>>
>>>    "In general, this field should only be used by large multi-module
>>>    packages, or by modules meant to extend these packages, such as  
>>> CCK,
>>>    Views, E-Commerce, Organic Groups and the like. All other modules
>>>    should leave this blank. As a guideline, four or more modules  
>>> that
>>>    depend on each other (or all on a single module) make a good
>>>    candidate for a package. Fewer probably do not."
>>>
>>> I am actively working on a very large site and adding (occasionally
>>> deleting) modules several times a week. Sometimes they are very  
>>> hard to
>>> find because of all those misused "package" designations. Please,
>>> please, please, if your module does not meet the guidelines,  
>>> remove that
>>> line from your .info files so that the module ends up in "Other,"  
>>> where
>>> it belongs. And please don't tell me about the various module page
>>> organization modules that the site owner doesn't want added.
>>
>> Wow, I can't believe it has taken this long for this issue to arise  
>> again in
>> this list.  The advise I received when bringing up this scenario  
>> when it was
>> added in Drupal 5 was, open an issue ticket with a patch for the  
>> offending
>> module.
>>
>> I've been thinking about a module to list the modules in alphabetic  
>> order by
>> module file name giving the 'package' as a column.  It is really a  
>> headache
>> to try to find that new module you just added to the file system in  
>> the
>> module list.
>>
>> --
>> Earnie
>> -- http://progw.com
>> -- http://www.for-my-kids.com
>>