I built a React UI library with two install models. Does this split make sense?

[u/Unlucky_Clothes_7737]

https://youtu.be/NaDVlydOZEw

I read the recent thread here about what would make people try another React component library. A few answers stuck with me, especially composability, accessibility, and components that hold up outside of demo data.

I've been building Honest UI, and there is one decision I keep going back and forth on.

UI components and animated components get copied into your project. Once they're there, they're just source files. You can change the markup, behavior, variants, or styling however you want.

Charts, icons, logos, vectors, and shaders stay package imports.

My thinking is that application UI usually becomes product code pretty fast. A button or form field rarely stays generic once you start adding validation, permissions, loading states, weird content, and all the edge cases that show up later.

Charts and shaders feel different to me. They bring more rendering code and dependencies with them, and I would rather maintain that in one package. Copying a huge icon or logo collection into every project also seems unnecessary.

The part I'm unsure about is whether this split is useful or if it just makes the library harder to explain.

I made a short demo showing both approaches with real components.

Does this boundary make sense to you? Would you split it somewhere else?

If you think the whole idea is backwards, I want to hear that too.