Re: splitting package on arch-dependant and arch-independant part s
В Втр, 14/06/2005 в 13:49 -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães пишет: > The praxis is, IIRC, only separate -bin and -data if there is a good > reason. For instance, if -data is *very* big AND is a good portion > of the original package AND is arch-indep, then you have good reason > to split the package. I think the policy does NOT allow for the > manpages to go in a separate package from the binary, because the > general rule is that if you can execute something, you can access > the manpage. But in most cases binary package depends on data package. So if you install binary you will have manpage anyway, even it is in data package. -- Sergey Fedoseev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: splitting package on arch-dependant and arch-independant parts
В Втр, 14/06/2005 в 16:55 +0200, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo пишет: > There's only one rule. Architecture dependent files go to binary package, > and architecture independent to data package. I consider some common procedures should exist anyway. For example ones move manpage to binary package and others move it to data package. Who is right? -- Sergey Fedoseev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
splitting package on arch-dependant and arch-independant parts
How exactly package should be splitted on data and binary parts? Which files should be moved to binary package and which to the in data one? Any standart procedures/recommendations/suggestions? -- Sergey Fedoseev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
