On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Daniel P. Berrange <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. But why are we being religious about "no code in -db" package? -- Regards, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) _______________________________________________ Libosinfo mailing list Libosinfo@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libosinfo
