Re: Fwknop: Layout suggestions for a future implementation
On Wed, Sep 02 2009, Franck Joncourt wrote:
> I have got one tarball from upstream which is separated in fwknop-client
> and fwknop-server. The programs are mainly implemented in perl.
> Upstream is now working on rewriting it in C. Thus we have now a brand
> new tarball available known as fwknop-c.
> This new tarball contains at the moment :
> - a shared library -> libfko
> - the documentation of the shared library
> - an XS module FKO that allows fwknop-client/server to use the new
> libfko library.
> - the fwknop client written in C
> - later maybe a fwknop-c-server
> Therefore, I was thinking about such binary packages:
> - 1) a shared library libfko0
> - 2) a devel package libfko0-dev
> - 3) a doc package libfko-doc
> - 4) a fwknop-c-client
> - 5) a fwknop-c-server
> - 6) a libspa-fko-perl module
> and I was suggesting to split the current fwknop-c tarball in three as
> - one for 1+2+3
> - one for 4+5
> - one for 6
> To me it looks reasonable to split it. What do others think?
> Upstream is also insterested in hearing your opinions :)
Please explain why it needs to be split? A single source package
can create as many binary packages as are desired, so the splitting off
the binary packages does not impose any requirements to split the source
Never be afraid to tell the world who you are. Anonymous
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C