Hi Stefan, > I'm packaging bluez-4.4 right now and just wanted to gather opinions about the > package naming (it might be good if distributions could agree on consistent > naming of packages). > > So how is everybody going to name the packages? The "old" ones for bluez-3.x > were easy: > > - either bluez-libs or libbluetooth2 for the libs > - bluez-utils for the hcid and hciconfig and related stuff > - bluez-audio for the audio stuff (packaged separately because of > the dependencies > - bluez-cups for the cups backend > > From a first glance, I'd just keep the package-naming as is, but since it is a > major version update anyway, if we want to change it, now might be a good time > ;-) > > Opinions, anyone? it seems that everybody is keeping the package names as they are. So mainly you have bluez-utils and bluez-libs (libbluetooth in case of Debian). The bluez-audio is the wrong approach and I commented on it already multiple times. Check the Fedora packages. So actual audio plugin should be part of bluez-utils since it has no dependencies whatsoever. And yes, it makes sense to have it without the ALSA and GStreamer plugins. So Fedora has bluez-alsa (containing the libasound* bits) and bluez-gstreamer (containing the libgst* bits). Check http://people.redhat.com/bnocera/bluez/bluez.spec for details. Personally I like to see the bluez-utils package vanish and we are just using bluez as main package name. Adding a virtual package bluetooth that install all BlueZ packages would be nice to have, too. This would result in the following package names: bluez bluez-libs bluez-libs-devel bluez-cups bluez-alsa bluez-gstreamer Regards Marcel -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bluetooth" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
