Re: are subpackages required for optional loadable libraries?

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

 



Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
"TK" == Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

TK> I think we need guidance here as well.  For instance, if a web
TK> application needs a database to work out of the box but that
TK> database could be any of mysql, postgres, or sqlite, do we require
TK> that one of those be installed?

Actually, no.  Don't forget that the first two of those don't need to
actually be on the machine running the application.

Client libraries are another issue, but they should end up being much
smaller.  And these days we should be thinking of sqlite as a default
system component.

True.  So, would the general best practice be:
1) should work out of the box.
2) When several alternative but non-optional components exist for that, the packager should pick one to depend on. 2a) The packager's decision of default can use many criteria for preference including whether the dependency is a system component (something that would be installed on most systems anyway), size, or promoted by upstream when making this decision. Just be sure to put some thought into it.

The bugzilla package is an example of this.  As is python-SQLAlchemy.

-Toshio

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

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

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite Forum]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux