Re: Replacing roxterm's multiple binary packages with one
On Tuesday 09 June 2015 17:22:30 Tony Houghton wrote:
> > Depending on its size, it may be better to keep roxterm-common: this
> > package is arch:all and this would avoid duplication these data for each
> > arch.
> IIRC I was thinking of doing that a long time ago (before the GTK2/3
> split) but was advised against it because the data files weren't very
> big. But they're probably considerably bigger now, mainly because of the
> translations.
Then we need the current data size to find out the best solution.
> If I did that I think I'd still have to use Breaks or
> Conflicts against the GTK2 packages I'm dropping;
I think so too.
> again I'd need some
> advice on exactly how to do that.
After reading [1], I think a "Breaks: roxterm-gtk2" should be enough.
> > Next, you may want to consider what will happen if (or when?) gtk4 appears
> > on your radar screen: will you split roxterm package again ?
>
> There were reasons for people to stick to GTK2, such as not liking GNOME
> 3 and because of <https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=649680>,
> but I hope the GTK3/4 transition will be smoother and not give me
> reasons to support both at once.
Fair enough. That's your call.
Hope this helps
[1] https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#s-conflicts
--
https://github.com/dod38fr/ -o- http://search.cpan.org/~ddumont/
http://ddumont.wordpress.com/ -o- irc: dod at irc.debian.org
Reply to: