Re: packaging question

[Florent Rougon <flo@via.ecp.fr>]

Peter S Galbraith <p.galbraith@globetrotter.net> wrote:

> > Splitting the docs when it doessn't have to happen, it not useful.
> 
> It depends.  Don't do it gratuitously, but it's worth doing if the docs
> are large.

OK, I am packaging a small Python extension (PyXMMS, the Debian package
being called python-xmms) whose documentation, although complete, is
therefore small.

Following indications of the Python policy draft, I intend to generate
the following binary packges :
  - python-xmms-common, containing the license and documentation for PyXMMS
  - python2.1-xmms, containing the binaries compiled against python 2.1
      + depends on python-xmms-common (and others)
      + /usr/share/doc/python2.1-xmms is a symlink pointing to
        /usr/share/doc/python-xmms-common
  - python2.2-xmms, similar to python2.1-xmms, compiled for Python 2.2
  - python-xmms, containing nothing
      + depends on python2.1-xmms as long as python2.1 is Debian default
        Python package
      + depends on python-xmms-common
      + /usr/share/doc/python-xmms is a symlink pointing to
        /usr/share/doc/python-xmms-common

Do you think it is overkill? Do you have something better to suggest?
Thanks for your feedback.

-- 
Florent


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org