On Tue, 03 Sep 2013 08:38:42 -0400 Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 09/01/2013 03:09 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1003196 > > So far, it has always been a packaging mistake to duplicate files > > (and their Provides as a consequence) in multiple subpackages. > > Well, there are a few places where I can see duplicating files making > sense (but certainly not to the degree demonstrated in the mate > packages). > > For example, in the SSSD package, we duplicate the 'sssd_pac' libexec > binary in both the 'sssd-provider-ad' and 'sssd-provider-ipa' plugin > subpackages, rather than add useless metadata for an extra common > subpackage for both to depend on. It seems wasteful to have a whole > subpackage for one 150k binary. You may need to duplicate license files, but I really can't see why you would duplicate binaries. It just makes no sense. That's what packages are for: eliminating redundancies and tracking dependency info. -- Susi Lehtola Fedora Project Contributor jussilehtola@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
