Am 04.10.2009 um 11:37 schrieb Sebastian Kayser:
Dagobert Michelsen wrote:
I would like to proceed on the splitting of devel packages as a
package
of mine is pending release whether the decision on this topic.
The current poll is
- 5 maintainers for "split off devel"
- 1 maintainer for "decide on case-by-case"
Does anyone feel that there is need for more discussion?
Has anyone (especially those who have voted) understood that the
split
will then be mandatory for package releases?
Do we have a written out wording for what is subject to the _devel
split
then?
Like this:
"Files related to developers must be split off in a separate developer
package.
Exceptions can be made when the primary target audience of the package
are developers.
When the base package is named CSW<pkg> with the catalog name <pkg>
the developer
package must be name CSW<pkg>devel with the catalog name <pkg>_devel.
The developer
package should contain
bin/*-config
*.a (static libs, if at all included)
pkgconfig/*
include/* (header files)
aclocal/* (for autoconf)
man1/*-config.1* (man pages for *-config)
man3/* (man pages for header files)
It may contain other files not related to the normal functionality of
the package
only relevant for compiling or building programs not usually done by
the user.
This means that for packages primarily focused on developers like Perl
do not
have a separate devel package as the base module itself is already for
developers.
The developer package for Perl may include the libperl.a static lib
only relevant
when building new packages with an embedded Perl."
Sebastian, would you be willing to unify the bugs and introduce
the "bugs-package-link" you suggested once we have clarified this
issue?
http://bugs.opencsw.org/<pkgname>
Yup, will develop this on my local box and then need Ihsan's help to
implement it on the www box. What do you mean by "unify"?
When we are going towards splitting up packages the package list in
Mantis gets
even longer and it is already very long. As the bugs are usually
related to
upstream packages it is feasible to put all bugs for packages produced
for an
upstream package together under its garname instead of having separate
buglists
for each individual package. That means you would e. g. have just
"openssl"
instead of "openssl_rt", "openssl_devel", "openssl_doc" etc. The
change should
only affect Mantis. The section in Mantis should then be accessed only
with
the URL syntax you described, so the abstraction is done at only one
place.
You can get the list of packages produced by a GAR description with
gmake pkglist
so the information for the mapping table is in there.
Best regards
-- Dago
_______________________________________________
maintainers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
