Re: Spliting packages between pkg and pkg-data
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 12:35:31PM -0800, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> 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): ...
It does, provide you don't do ?package(foo-package): of course.
Cheers,
--
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>
Imagine a large red swirl here.
Reply to: