Re: packaging question
Florent Rougon <flo@via.ecp.fr> wrote:
> 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.
It's probably overkill. If users are likely to install EITHER
python2.1-xmms or python2.2-xmms but not both, then repeat the docs in
each and forget about python-xmms-common (the license needs to be in
every binary package anyway).
At that point, python-xmms is probably overkill too.
Peter
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: