Re: Question regarding split of packages
|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
On 01/11/2012 10:20 AM, Matthias Runge wrote:
When carefully done, yes. The minimum requirement would be such a change to be "100% transparent to users within a Fedora release".-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 10/01/12 12:10, Simone Caronni wrote:Hello,I just stumbled upon this: the plan is to separate the bacula-docs subpackage from bacula package and create a new package bacula-docs. (review request at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771941 ) My question is, is the split possible in existing trees, e.g in F16?
IMO, however, the better question would be "why to split out docs?".In general, separate doc packages make sense in cases they are "very large" or in case the docs are "mostly irrelevant" to users (i.e. hardly anybody will want to read/install them).
In all other cases separate doc packages do not add many benefits but only add packaging complexity (esp. dependencies) and add sources of potential bugs.
I am not familiar with your package to be able to comment on your particular case.
Ralf -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
[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]