[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Spliting packages between pkg and pkg-data

On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 04:26:34PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> was heard to say:
> Nicolas Boullis <nboullis@debian.org> writes:
> > On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 12:13:48PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> >> Hello Debian developers,
> >> 
> >> When doing research about circular-deps, I looked at a lot of packages
> >> that are split between a binary package and a data package. This is a
> >> good thing since this reduce the total siez of the archive, however
> >> there are simple rules that should be followed:
> >> 
> >> 3) Keep the files that 'signal' executables in the same package than the
> >>    executable (e.g. menu file, program manpage).
> >
> > Why? I agree that it menu files and manpages are generally not that 
> > large, but what would it break to have them in pkg-data?
> > (I would consider it strange to have such files out of the main pkg 
> > package, but it looks policy-compliant as far as I can see...)
> >
> >
> > Nicolas
> foo depends on foo-data. But foo-data does NOT depend on foo.
> So an "apt-get install foo-data", while being useless, is consistent
> for dpkg. After that you would end up with a menu entry for foo but no
> foo binary.

  Shouldn't menu refuse to create menu entries for "foo" if the foo package
is not installed?  At least, I thought that's what

?package(foo): ...



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: