Re: Packaging problem.
On Wednesday 07 January 2004 05:20, Chris Cheney wrote: On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 12:00:19PM +0100, Jean-Michel Kelbert wrote: To my mind it is not a good idea to include lib in a binary package, so I don't want to do only one package. To be honest I don't know why most of the kde programs have libraries at all. Except for the ones that have kparts or plugins it makes very little sense since they will only be used by the one program. Libraries AFAIU it the libraries are needed for the kdeinit hack, to speed up startup time. that are only used by one program shouldn't be split out at all imho. And generally the ftp admin team frowns on the library packaging guide that states to split everything library into a libfoo libfoo-bin libfoo-dev. If we did that for all of KDE there would probably be an extra 300-400 packages, that would be pointless... I agree. If lib is only needed by one program there should be no extra pkgs. Achim Chris -- To me vi is Zen. To use vi is to practice zen. Every command is a koan. Profound to the user, unintelligible to the uninitiated. You discover truth everytime you use it. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Packaging problem.
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 11:01:14AM +0300, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote: Hi, I am the maintenair of k3b. Could you please explain what's the rationale of splitting k3b in several packages? Seems that k3b libraries are used only by k3b itself, and none of the k3b packages is architecture-independent. Isn't it better to put everything in a single package? Yes, I'm actually surprised that the ftp admin team let it through. They have rejected similiar things in the past. To be honest it looks like their _NEW_ processing isn't happening right now and things are being immediately accepted into the archive, which is probably not a good idea. I uploaded a meta-kde package that should have been marked NEW and it wasn't and instead went directly in. Chris signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Packaging problem.
Le 06/01/04 à 11:09 Chris Cheney ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) écrivait : Yes, I'm actually surprised that the ftp admin team let it through. They have rejected similiar things in the past. To be honest it looks like their _NEW_ processing isn't happening right now and things are being immediately accepted into the archive, which is probably not a good idea. I uploaded a meta-kde package that should have been marked NEW and it wasn't and instead went directly in. My package wait during 2 weeks before been accepted in Sid. For the library problem, I will do a package which will contains all libs. Then we'll have : k3b k3blibs k3blibs-deb To my mind it is not a good idea to include lib in a binary package, so I don't want to do only one package. Comments are welcome -- Jean-Michel Kelbert signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Packaging problem.
On Tue, 6 Jan 2004, Jean-Michel Kelbert wrote: Then we'll have : k3b k3blibs k3blibs-deb To my mind it is not a good idea to include lib in a binary package, so I don't want to do only one package. Comments are welcome Having a lib only makes sense when and if there are other packages using it. Are there any? Basing your decision on the _doctrine_ that libs should be packaged separately isn't a very good idea: the same doctrine could be applied to -doc and -i18-some-language. Applied universally this would result in a major pain for admins. *t -- --- Tomas Pospisek http://sourcepole.com - Linux Open Source Solutions ---
Re: Packaging problem.
Le 06/01/04 à 13:32 Tomas Pospisek's Mailing Lists ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) écrivait : Having a lib only makes sense when and if there are other packages using it. Are there any? Basing your decision on the _doctrine_ that libs should be packaged separately isn't a very good idea: the same doctrine could be applied to -doc and -i18-some-language. Applied universally this would result in a major pain for admins. I don't see the problem for admins : there is depends/recommends... It is better to separate, when it can be usefull. Do you imagine you want kde in German, and you have to all kde-i18n languages... For the moment no others programs use k3blibs, but it can change, and it is better to have the separation now. By the way, it would be interested to determine how many libs are used by only one package. -- Jean-Michel Kelbert signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Packaging problem.
it is not a good idea to include lib in a binary package Why? This is true if library is useful for other application development. Isn't k3b library useful for k3b only?
Re: Packaging problem.
On Tue, 6 Jan 2004, Jean-Michel Kelbert wrote: Le 06/01/04 à 13:32 Tomas Pospisek's Mailing Lists ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) écrivait : Having a lib only makes sense when and if there are other packages using it. Are there any? Basing your decision on the _doctrine_ that libs should be packaged separately isn't a very good idea: the same doctrine could be applied to -doc and -i18-some-language. Applied universally this would result in a major pain for admins. I don't see the problem for admins : there is depends/recommends... It is a problem. Debian has too many packages _now_. apt-get update is sluggish allready. Navigating through 10'000 packages as well. Etc. It is better to separate, when it can be usefull. In theory yes. But theory is not practice. A package can depend on k3b and then it has everything it needs. Do you imagine you want kde in German, and you have to all kde-i18n languages... Sure, you need to balace to pros and the cons of splitting a package. Sometimes it makes sense, sometimes not. For the moment no others programs use k3blibs, but it can change, and it is better to have the separation now. I suggest you split it once the fact it's splitted is useful. Now it's _not_ useful since no other package depends on it. By the way, it would be interested to determine how many libs are used by only one package. You can determine that: reverse-depends. But do you think the argument others have done it as well would be useful? *t -- --- Tomas Pospisek http://sourcepole.com - Linux Open Source Solutions ---
Re: Packaging problem.
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 12:00:19PM +0100, Jean-Michel Kelbert wrote: To my mind it is not a good idea to include lib in a binary package, so I don't want to do only one package. To be honest I don't know why most of the kde programs have libraries at all. Except for the ones that have kparts or plugins it makes very little sense since they will only be used by the one program. Libraries that are only used by one program shouldn't be split out at all imho. And generally the ftp admin team frowns on the library packaging guide that states to split everything library into a libfoo libfoo-bin libfoo-dev. If we did that for all of KDE there would probably be an extra 300-400 packages, that would be pointless... Chris signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Packaging problem.
Hi, I am the maintenair of k3b. I recognize that this problem is due to a packaging problem. This night version 0.10.3-4 will enter into sid. It purpuses is to solve the k3bsetup problem. Tomorrow, I will create a new package which will solve this problem. Sorry for the annoyance. But please don't run ./configure make make install : This will broke your system ! And please don't open several times a bug for the same problem : check before submitting one ! Thanks. -- Jean-Michel Kelbert signature.asc Description: Digital signature
