The FreeBSD ports take approach 1. There are a load of etoile-* packages and an etoile metaport that just depends on them all. It's a bit more work, but since Dirk has already done it once you can probably steal a lot of his effort (for example, he has, I think, got all of the dependencies correct).
David On 9 Oct 2009, at 16:21, Larson, Timothy E. wrote: > Looking at all that Etoile is (a framework, an window manager, > several handy apps of various kinds), I think there are two possible > ways to go about packaging it, but I don't know which way is more > beneficial to users. > > 1) Package pieces separately (i.e. core framework, Azalea, Melodie, > etc.) with a meta-package for the whole of "Etoile". Pro: if you > want just a particular app you could build just that. Cons: more > maintenance for packaging, more understanding needed on part of the > packager. > > 2) Single package. Pro: probably the simplest and quickest > approach. Cons: have to install the whole thing even if you only > want part of it, harder to categorize since so many different kinds > of things are included, failure of any component to build properly > means the entire package wouldn't be available. > > What are other packagers doing? Looking at how other similar > software (KDE, Gnome, GNUstep) is packaged in pkgsrc, it looks like > #1 is preferred. How feasible is this to do with the current > structure and build system? Is this as easy as descending to the > subdir for the component and running make from there? Are > dependencies within Etoile detailed somewhere (other than makefiles > themselves)? > > > Thanks, > Tim > _______________________________________________ > Etoile-packaging mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/etoile-packaging -- Sent from my Apple II _______________________________________________ Etoile-packaging mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/etoile-packaging
