[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Splitting the package.



* Jerome Warnier <jwarnier@bxlug.be> [020513 12:00]:
[splitting openoffice.org in packages]
> The problem I see is that we would still have to download the full 
> source package to do that!
> Isn't a way to split that also? I think this is an upstream issue. Are 
> we close enough to ask them to make it?

It think we may ask, but it will not be easy for them to do so. 
(I even fear splitting out the -doc may cause problems, needing
 some patches to downgrade it from an depend to an recommend or suggest)

The source itself has some very modular aspects, but the build-
systems ties it strong together. Building some udk-dev or
oo-dev with the needed files for the rest to compile may
be possible. But in order to allow the build-system of OOo
to work theese -dev packages will IMHO need to break many
rules we have for such packages within Debian.

Perhaps if upstreams gets the source more tidied up, it will
be easily possible, but until then it will be hard. (So it
may not be impossible, as I also thought getting the packaged
with upstream's build-system may be nearly impossible).

For what I can see, the base - namly the udk - is quite
good modularized. But the higher the get the older the
code seems to become. My large hope is that the "tools"[1]
module will vanish and the code depending on it been
tidyed up. (But I think an AI checking your grammar
by understanding what you want to say may be easier
to be implemented)


Hochachtungsvoll,
	Bernhard R. Link

[1] BTW: is there any possiblity to come to know,
in which project an given module is? I wanted to look
at the old promise to remove it, but did not found
even the project it is in.
        
-- 
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve 
nor will he ever receive either. (Benjamin Franklin)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-openoffice-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org



Reply to: