"Cantor, Scott" <canto...@osu.edu> writes: > On 3/16/14, 10:31 PM, "Russ Allbery" <r...@debian.org> wrote:
>> Hm, okay, in that case I'm inclined to change the -common package to >> -runtime (which is a more typical convention for arch-dependent >> supporting files for libraries), put both the configuration and the >> plugins in that, and have the library package depend on it. Does that >> make sense? > Yes, probably so. I would say runtime is a pretty good description. But > is it acceptable to have the library package depend on this when there > are files in it that in turn are linked to the libraries? That seems > circular. Oh, are they linked to the libraries? Oh, sure enough. Okay, those have to go into a separate package then. Are they needed by shibd? I know they're needed by the Apache module, so it should depend on the plugin package. I'm inclined to call it libshibsp-plugins, if that sounds like it makes sense, parallel to the -dev package. Hm, and maybe I should go with libshibsp-runtime as well instead of shibboleth-sp2-runtime. Are the configuration files and schemata only used by the library, or do other things, like the Apache modules, FastCGI programs, and shibd, use them directly? Thanks for all your advice on this! -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
