Re: RFS: qastools

[Benoît Knecht <benoit.knecht@fsfe.org>]

Sebastian H. wrote:
> >>>>> Why regroup qasmixer and qasconfig into one package? Wouldn't it be
> >>>>> better having them Recommend each other? It doesn't seem like an
> >>>>> improvement forcing users to install both tools instead of giving them
> >>>>> the choice. But maybe I'm missing something.
> >>>>
> >>>> The short answer is, it makes package maintenance much easier and
> >>>> is less error prone.
> >>>
> >>> I see the point of having one source package for all the tools, but you
> >>> could still make several binary packages from there (as alsa-tools does,
> >>> though not for every single utility I must admit).
> >>
> >> I've thought about multiple packages, too.
> >> A setup like this should work:
> >> qastools-common    - Shared stuff ( l10n, etc. )
> >> qastools-qasconfig - Config app
> >> qastools-qashctl   - HCTL Mixer app
> >> qastools-qasmixer  - Mixer app
> >>
> >> That would require a patch to the root CMakelists.txt for each package
> >> but it should be a trivial. The esscence there is:
> >>
> >> ADD_SUBDIRECTORY ( i18n )
> >> ADD_SUBDIRECTORY ( qasconfig )
> >> ADD_SUBDIRECTORY ( qashctl )
> >> ADD_SUBDIRECTORY ( qasmixer )
> >>
> >> Three of the four would have be commented out for each package.
> >> Thinking about it this looks better to me than the collection package.
> >> Do you think this is a reasonable setup?
> > 
> > I haven't looked into the details, but I don't think you need to patch
> > your CMakelists.txt at all. Simply use debian/${package}.install files
> > to tell debhelper which files belong to which binary package (see
> > dh_install(1)).
> 
> That's looks even easier.
> But together with the manpage fixes I think reasonable to do a 0.16.1
> release. It can also introduce build arguments to cmake which tells it
> which applications to build. That way no debian/* quirks should be
> neccessary. Please considers this RFS frozen until then.

I'm not sure I see how you would actually implement that in
debian/rules; but of course I was only suggesting one way to do it, and
if you think there's better way, by all means do it :)

Cheers,

-- 
Benoît Knecht