Michel Salim wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 4:46 AM, Florian Festi <ffesti@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
For those cases, 2 approaches exist:
1) let all packages which provide such a plugin own the directory, they
install a plugin/add-on to (This is the approach, which is being applied for
packaging perl-modules)
This approach, however is only functional when all packages providing such
"plugins/add-ons" obey such a convention.
2) split out the plugin/add-on package into a separate package and let
this spit-out package depend on the "base-package".
There is a third possible approach:
Split out the plugin dir into a separate package and let
plugin/add-on packages depend on it.
That is actually a very good idea.
I dislike this idea.
It leads to "one dir/file per package" packages and is functionally
equivalent 1).
That way, you can even script the
following query: "which functionality do I have plugins for?" by doing
rpm -qa \*-filesystem
or whichever common naming convention we settle on.
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
