Re: splitting package on arch-dependant and arch-independant part s
* Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo :: On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 09:39:09PM +0600, Sergey Fedoseev wrote: 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? Who moved binary (_architecture_ dependent binary) to -data package? Basically you don't have to split package if there are Since when are manpages architecture dependent binaries? no architecture dependent data in it (or such data is very small). Maybe you should tell us what program are you going to package. That would be a good idea. -- HTH, Massa -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: splitting package on arch-dependant and arch-independant part s
Sergey Fedoseev [EMAIL PROTECTED] no architecture dependent data in it (or such data is very small). Maybe you should tell us what program are you going to package. That would be a good idea. I'm not going to package program...yet. There are many packages already splitted. And I believe binary part of most of them can be reduced (and it can be reduced not only by moving manpages). And to not file a bug to every package I want this to be discussed there. For example ones move manpage to binary package and others move it to data package. Who is right? So who is right? 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. -- HTH, Massa -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: splitting package on arch-dependant and arch-independant part s
, 14/06/2005 13:49 -0300, Humberto Massa Guimares : 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 part s
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 01:08:37PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimar?es wrote: Who moved binary (_architecture_ dependent binary) to -data package? Basically you don't have to split package if there are Since when are manpages architecture dependent binaries? I didn't say anything about manpages, did I? regards fEnIo -- ,''`. Bartosz Fenski | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | pgp:0x13fefc40 | irc:fEnIo : :' : 32-050 Skawina - Glowackiego 3/15 - w. malopolskie - Poland `. `' phone:+48602383548 | proud Debian maintainer and user `- http://skawina.eu.org | jid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | rlu:172001 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: splitting package on arch-dependant and arch-independant part s
I didn't say anything about manpages, did I? Your phrase was directly after Sergey's question of where should he put the manpages. Apropos, Sergey, your argument about manpages going in -data is sound, provided -bin REALLY Depends: on -data. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
