On 18 Feb 2008, at 01:23, David R. Morrison wrote: > I thought I would followup on this, since I know that imagemagick was > one of the examples you had in mind. > > I couldn't find a way to get imagemagick to build binaries that > enabled plugins, without also building the plugins (and hence dragging > in all the unwanted libraries to the build). > > So what I did was to modify the imagemagick-nox package so that it > built *nothing* shared... this makes the package perhaps a bit > bloated, but avoids the need for the dependent libraries of the bits > being left out. > > This did have one implication for packaging, however: to avoid > conflicts between imagemagick10-shlibs and imagemagick-nox, I moved > the plugin files to the main package rather than the shlibs splitoff. > The two main packages conflict/replace each other, but only the "x" > version cares about a shlib splitoff.
does this indeed mean that there are no libs in the -nox version _ that any other pkg's deps have to be on the main variant, (except if they use only the binaries ?) (Or just that there are no dylibs ?) (Else I don't see how identical debs could be manufactured from both pkgs ..) Seems a decisive step forward ! Thanks ! JF ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net http://news.gmane.org/gmane.os.apple.fink.devel
