Re: Unpackaged optional dependencies

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

On 01/08/2012 10:29 PM, Spencer Jackson wrote:
> Hi, I'm currently packaging a robotics simulator called Morse
> ( ). Morse allows its
> simulations to be interacted with via multiple middleware protocols,
> including sockets, YARP, pocolibs, ROS, and a few others. Upstream has
> recommended that I extract support for these protocols into separate
> subpackages, which seems very reasonable. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem
> that we have packages for some of these middlewares.
> So, what is the best course of action? I wouldn't really object to
> writing up a few more packages for these most of these optional
> dependencies. However, packaging ROS might be... problematic
> ( ),
> and although an employee of their backer has indicated that he
> has some interest, I wouldn't be surprised if it took a while.
> I suppose one option would be to strip out the unsupported middleware,
> until some point in the future when there is support, then
> incrementally adding subpackages for each protocol.
> Any advice would be much appreciated.
> Spencer

Citing Voltaire//
"Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien."/

The better is the enemy of the good.

or in other variant translations

The perfect is the enemy of the good.
The best is the enemy of the good.

Without knowing the complete details about those protocols I would say
that proceeding incrementally is a good strategy.

José Matos

packaging mailing list

[Home]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Red Hat 9 Bible]     [Fedora Bible]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]

Powered by Linux