Michael Schwendt wrote: > "can" as in "it's optional"? or "can" as in "there's a strict dependence > on a digikam library when digikam plugins support is built into the image > viewer"? It's a configure switch, so it's strict. > So, the dependence is automatic (due to a linked library)? exactly > Is size a matter here? ;) In this case, I don't think size is a matter ;o) The full digikam package weights 2.6Mo > See also the recent discussion of FLAC, which was not split into > flac and flac-lib in Fedora Core 2 devel unlike fedora.us. Yes, it looks like maintaining splitted packages can become a mess. That's why I asked for advice here. > IMHO, such changes should be implemented correctly upstream. A clean > modules system which allows adding/removing features at run-time. However, > if upstream is focused on source tarballs as opposed to distributions, > they likely not see a problem and expect everyone to build from source and > link in only the features that are wanted. Fortunately, showimg is still in a pre-1.0 development stage. This could be a nice RFE :) For now, I'll keep the digikam package whole. Thanks Aurélien -- http://gauret.free.fr ~~~~ Jabber : gauret@xxxxxxxxxxxxx "Unix was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever things." -- Doug Gwyn
