Re: Planning new virtual packages for hamm
> > Second, I think libss is only used by debugfs. If that were broken out into a
> > separate non-essential package then libss wouldn't be a problem, right?
>
> Yes, but separating may have to wait for 2.1. There are already quite
> a number of changes to do inside frozen, and I feel we should keep
> them to a minimum. Brian ?
Off hand, I don't think it would be worth creating a seperate package
just for "debugfs". I think there is a point where making the granularity
any finer doesn't really accomplish anything.
Would breaking out libss and debugfs accomplish enough to be worth the
trouble?
> > The reason i'm concerned is that these aren't the only versions of these
> > libraries and we may want to break them out of this source package some day.
> > I guess that will be ok as long as the shlibs file refers to the virtual
> > packages.
>
> That's exactly why I splitted. But, as they originally were package
> monolithically in an essential package, there are big problems when
> splitting (namely, can't use Pre-Depends to ensure e2fsprogs won't
> ever be broken because of one of the libs failing to unpack)
I'm not really informed enough about these packages to make judgements
on this. Wanting to be able to interchange other libraries is a good
arguement for the split. It may be possible to include other libraries
into the existing monolithic package, much as (I believe) netbase includes
many little packages in one.
Brian
( bcwhite@verisim.com )
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tired of spam? See what you can do to fight it at: http://www.cauce.org/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: