2009/11/23 Andrea Scarpino <andrea@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > On 23/11/2009, Gergely Imreh <imrehg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Maybe because people have personal preferences, since all these >> applications are different from each other? > So don't be unhappy if they requires dependencies that aren't made for > your environment :) I'm sorry, to me this reads as one have two choice: accept or leave. But that's not the case, as you yourself noticed that the packaging can be made more rational. It's open source, people can do try fixing things / suggesting fixes instead of just accepting the status quo. I think the original issue can be cast into a broader topic: (without giving any references, because I don't have any from the top of my head right now) I encounter quite a few packages that have dependencies down the chain that don't seem to be related to the original package. This seems to be a general open source issue. It's great to have libraries to divide the task into smaller pieces and reuse whatever possible, but projects seem to be less effectivee dividing between "depends" and "optdepends". Sometimes it's an upstream issue, sometimes it's packaging. With more practice and more eyes checking things out it will be better. Anyway, this is just an observation, Arch seems to do quite well in general (thanks Maintainers:). I'll look around the repos again and might come up for some more repackaging ideas for the next bug squashing day or something... >> As a comparison, looking at the Ubuntu packaging of digikam: >> digikam -> kdepimlibs5 -> libakonadiprivate1 (and no mysql only if one >> installs the whole akonadi-server) >> Might worth checking out... (libaconadiprivate1: This package contains >> private libraries used by the Akonadi PIM storage service.) > Yes, I looked akonadi's Makefile and we can split akonadi package in > akonadi and akonadi-server easy. I'll do some try tomorrow. That sounds great! Cheers! :) Greg
