Le 27/03/2013 09:21, Boris Pek a écrit : > Hi Thibaut, > >> Can you explain why you chose to split the source? This forces you to >> have astromenace only recommend astromenace-data, which is not good >> since you can't play the game without the data. > > I have at least three reasons for this: > 1) It is more convenient in maintaining. Data files are changed rarely. There > is no need to rebuild and re-upload huge package with them each time. > 2) As I wrote earlier [1] package astromenace should recommend > astromenace-data only at initial upload (to avoid circular dependencies). > In next upload astromenace-data can be moved to dependencies. > 3) IIRC buildd does not build packages in non-free area and pre-build binary > packages should be uploaded into it manually. In this case binary packages > will be available on less number of architectures than it should be > possible. > > [1] http://bugs.debian.org/696385#19 > > Best regards, > Boris Hi Boris, That makes sense. I was also thinking that the root of this was the ability to autobuild the binary. However, I have an alternative proposal which would avoid the problem and should not impose too much hassle on you: ship the entire source in astromenace-data, build the executable there, use it to package the data, but do not ship the built executable. This way, astromenace-data does not need to build-depend on astromenace, which can rightfully Depend on astromenace-data. You don't need to bootstrap by first only Recommending astromenace-data. Kind regards, Thibaut.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature