Re: multilib paths and packaging for processor-specific extensions

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



> My second question is what are people's opinions about including all 
> architecture-specific libraries in a single i386 package vs. separating 
> them into subpackages. A base set of atlas libraries is a 5 MB package 
> (and bigger installed of course), part of the reason I think that the 
> Debian packages for atlas are all separated into subpackages (atlas-sse, 
> etc).

I would go for 1 big package. Reason: it's really unfunny to otherwise
make sure the right package gets installed automatically (other than
installing the lot anyway, at which point you might as well make one big
one)

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]
  Powered by Linux