[Pkg-jed-commit] r826 - jed-extra/trunk/debian

[Rafael Laboissiere]

* G. Milde <milde at users.sourceforge.net> [2007-08-31 16:19]:

> On 31.08.07, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> > * Rafael Laboissiere <rafael at debian.org> [2007-08-31 13:25]:
> 
> > > I will take a look at packaging slwildcard, slexpat, and slsqlite.
> 
> > It was much easier than I thought.  I created packages for slexpat [1]
> > and slsqlite [2].  They are also in SVN.  Please review them.  Note that I
> > still have to fill ITPs for these packages.
> 
> > [1] http://people.debian.org/~rafael/slexpat/
> > [2] http://people.debian.org/~rafael/slsqlite/
> 
> Looking at the actual size of the packages and the organisation and
> management overhead I would actually prefer one common package for all
> (or a subset of the) modules in http://www.cheesit.com/downloads/slang.

I would agree with you if there was a jumbo upstream tarball containing all
modules with a corresponding Makefile to build everything.  Implementing a
common package as you suggest would introduce the complexity of creating an
upstream tarball from the individual modules and add extra code for building
the whole thing.  

On the other hand, keeping things modular has some benefits. The
debian/rules files for slexpat, slsqllite and slwildcard are strictly the
same and contain just four lines of code (thanks to CDBS).  It took me
almost no time to put the packages together, just by copying/editing files.
Also, using separate packages allows us to use uscan and monitor upstream
versions (as in [1]).

Debian has a long tradition in modular packages, in particular to reduce the
tree of dependencies on libraries.

I vote for separate packages.  If the majority here thinks it is better to
have a single jumbo package, someone else than me should implement the
beast.

[1] http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=pkg-jed-sl-modules@lists.alioth.debian.org

-- 
Rafael