On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 05:35:15PM +0100, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > Thanks for the very long explanation (I especially appreciated the > ascii-art diagram) but I don't quite agree. > > While I don't see any harm in -db not depending on libosinfo, I really > don't see the benefit of going as far as to providing a separate > package for db tools. The -db does not necessarily be only data > either. I'd just keep the tools in -db or libosinfo and avoid the > maintenance and packaging headache. Actually I think it would make maintenance easier because it avoids tieing together things that would naturally evolve seprately. For example, there could be cases where a distro would want to update the DB management tools, but not pull in a new library version, or vica-verca. Letting these things evolve separately with their own release schedules will make life simpler for people consuming them, as they won't be faced with mutually exclusive decisions about which updates to pull in if they want to rebase some parts but not others. This may not sound like a big deal when all osinfo-db-tools contains is a couple of command line tools for validate & unpacking archives, but I've mentioned ideas before about providing tools to periodically query & download updated database version, so the osinfo-db-tools package is likely to gain more functionality & complexity over time. So I think over the long term the split will be beneficial to all involved. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| _______________________________________________ Libosinfo mailing list Libosinfo@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libosinfo
