From: Joshua Jackson <tsunam@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] 1/2 OT: splitting packages
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 15:18:15 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4648E027.1050707@gentoo.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1179177921.6455.5.camel@ashe.anyarch.net>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1857 bytes --]
Daniel Ostrow wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 23:18 +0200, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>>
>> I know this issue is not actually in the scope of this list, but
>> maybe some of you might be interested:
>>
>> Lots of packages have optional parts which (IMHO) should/could be
>> their own packages, ie. GUI frontends to console tools (aumix) or
>> several language bindings of certain libs/toolkits.
>>
>> Those things tend to produce circular dependencies, which can
>> only be solved with tricks like multiple builds, special useflags
>> like "build" or "bootstrap".
>>
>> For example berkeley db: it written in C and has additional
>> bindings for C++ and Java. This produces two kind of problems:
>>
>> a) for the base system we must take care that it's built w/o them.
>> b) if some package needs an special binding, dependencies get tricky
>> (AFAIK portage cannot solve feature deps yet)
>>
>> An clean solution would be having the bindings as separate packages.
>> Of course, often the upstream is not ready for this yet, and it's
>> not in the scope of an distro like gentoo to such heavy changes.
>>
>> But those splits really should be done (IMHO) to make things a lot
>> easier. So let's do it - do the split and try to convince the
>> upstream to get it in.
>>
>
> We release our packages as upstream intends. If they don't split them,
> we don't split them, talk to upstream not us. This is what use flags are
> for...
>
> --Dan
>
At what point is your sand so fine that you can't identify it as a
grain. In other words...this induces a much larger set of packages that
at least in my opinion would waste a lot of developer time for not a lot
or any benefit, and as mentioned by Daniel we follow upstream and if
they want it as one large package, we'll do it as well.
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-05-14 22:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-05-14 21:18 [gentoo-dev] 1/2 OT: splitting packages Enrico Weigelt
2007-05-14 21:25 ` Daniel Ostrow
2007-05-14 22:18 ` Joshua Jackson [this message]
2007-05-14 23:01 ` William L. Thomson Jr.
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4648E027.1050707@gentoo.org \
--to=tsunam@gentoo.org \
--cc=gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox