Re: RFS: hexec

[George Danchev <danchev@spnet.net>]

On Monday 01 December 2008 16:04:33 Alexander Block wrote:

Hi,

Hm, interesting approach. Package looks good to me, except that it builds one 
binary package, not three, which is fine. Adding a watch file would be good 
idea too, regardless you are both upstream and debian maintainer of that 
package, because in that case your users (Debian External Health Status - 
DEHS included) would be able to catch your debian packaging lagging your 
upstream releases, if any ;-)

> It builds these binary packages:
> hexec           - The hexec tool itself
> libhexec-common - Shared library for hexec internal use
> libhexec-hook   - Shared library that implements the exec hooking

These are leftovers, right ? I see no good reason to split two separate 
runtime library packages if your `application' package (built from the same 
source package) needs them both to operate as well. Or these are just long 
forgotten bits from a library/dev split attempt ? If you intend to distibute 
a) separate runtime `library' packages (the shared library) and b) separate 
buildtime `development' packages (headers and static library) then it might 
make any sense to leave your users some options to choose which of these they 
would need and not bother with the rest, i.e. they might want to build depend 
on libhook-dev, but not on libfoo-dev (produced from the same source 
package). That gains you almost nothing, but anyway.

-- 
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>