On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 05:15:22PM +0200, Sander Hoentjen alleged: > Hi, > > I am currently the packager of aMSN (and I intend to stay that). aMSN is > an msn clone in a sense that it tries to mimic the looks and > functionality of the official client, and more. For the more bit aMSN is > extensible with various plugins. The upstream release tarball always has > a few plugins included, so i made amsn and amsn-plugins from that > source. There is also module in cvs with extra skins and plugins, and > there exist various plugins and skins contributed by users. Should i > create 2 extra packages, one for skins, and one for plugins, or a > package for each skin/plugin? I say, follow the dependencies. If skins and various plugins have different external deps, then seperate them. You want to avoid the situation where there are lots of unwanted deps to get at 1 plugin. If a source package creates 10 plugins, 9 have no external deps, and the 10th requires some libfoo, than the 9 should be in 1 package, and the 10th in a seperate package. Don't needless seperate each skin and plugin into different packages; that it just annoying for the user. > Also if one package for all plugins should be created how should i call > it, something like amsn-plugins-extra or should i remove the > amsn-plugins from the amsn.spec and include those plugins in > amsn-plugins.spec Depends on the development. Can plugins be built without a main -devel package? Are main and extras developed and released at different rates? Do the upstream docs make a clear seperation between main and extras? Do upstream packages establish a precedent? -- Garrick Staples, Linux/HPCC Administrator University of Southern California
Attachment:
pgpv5FNvzkYC2.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
