----- "Eric Sandeen" <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Mark Goodwin wrote:
> > Nathan Scott wrote:
> >> The main issue there is
> >> the need to split the current pcp rpm into separate library
> >> runtime, devel, and main pcp package.
> >>
> >
> > I had a brief look at this last week. Nathan has already done
> > the packaging split for Debian, see debian/*.{install,dirs}
> > so it'd be a matter of hacking the RPM spec to create sub-packages
> > in a similar fashion :
> > >
> so this is what... 10 packages, 5 of them -devel?
>
> > But isn't that many packages a bit of an over-kill? I'm not sure of
> > the actual packaging policies for Fedora, but surely it would be
> > enough to have pcp, pcp-libs and pcp-devel (and similar for
> pcp-gui)
> > rather than a separate package and devel package for every library
> ...
> > or is *that* the policy?
>
> I don't think Fedora would dictate that. Nathan, what is the reason
Its required by Debian Policy.
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-sharedlibs.html
>
> > We'd also want to move those files into the build directory since
> > they'd no longer be just for debian.
>
> aren't those unique to the debian packaging procedures?
>
I think Mark was saying those files that contains lists of files
could be used elsewhere in the build to ensure all packages have
consistent contents.
cheers.
--
Nathan
|