Re: RFC: Yorick (scientific interpreted language) & plug-ins
Sorry for the personal answer Thijs, this was meant to go to the list.
Thanks for your answer.
Le jeudi 04 mai 2006 à 17:25 +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst a écrit :
> > * package granularity: I have currently 7 add-on packages (one more
> > coming soon), each one rather small (few 100K each) but coming from a
> > different upstream and depending on different libraries (like libtiff,
> > zlib and other). Should I keep these add-ons separate or compile a
> > single yorick-addons package? (I need this question sorted out before
> > I start filling ITP bugs).
> With 'different upstream', do you mean different upstream tarballs and
> upstream authors?
Yes. Some of the packages come from a single author, but that's
definitely different upstream tarballs.
> Then I'd stick with the
> one-source-package-per-upstream approach. Merging stuff from different
> upstream sources makes sense when they are very numerous and/or very
> small. They do not seem to be exceptionally small, nor is there a very
> big number of them.
> > I have the reversed question for the upcoming package (yeti,
> > http://www-obs.univ-lyon1.fr/~thiebaut/yeti/yeti-6.0.2.tar.gz )
> > which is indeed 4 plugins: a set of general purpose utilities, and
> > wrappers for regex functionnalities, libtiff and libfftw2. If I stick
> > to one package per plugin, should I split this one?
> Ok, are you talking about source or binary packages here? For source
> packages, the reasoning might be the same as above.
Yes, I have started with a single source package and multiple binaries.
(the upstream package is really thought that way).
> > If I go for grouping all the add-ons in a single package, what version
> > numbers should I use for it?
> It should be sensible. Is there a common denominator in the version
> numbers of all the contents (e.g. they all start with abc) then you
> could use that as a basis. If there's absolutely no connection at all
> between the version numbers, you could use the date you put them all
No, they range from 0.1 to 6.0.2. If I go that route, I think a date
scheme, perhaps prepended with a major number that I would bump when
adding/removing one of the plugins from the package would be a good
Actually, if I stay with the one-package-per-plugin approach, I was
thinking of providing a virtual package that would pull out yorick and
all the plugins (except perhaps the most specialised). Would that make
sense? In that case, I also need to think of a reasonable versionning.
(the above looks OK).
Best regards, Thibaut.