On Wed, Sep 02 2009, Franck Joncourt wrote:
> I have got one tarball from upstream which is separated in fwknop-client
> and fwknop-server. The programs are mainly implemented in perl.
>
> Upstream is now working on rewriting it in C. Thus we have now a brand
> new tarball available known as fwknop-c.
>
> This new tarball contains at the moment :
>
> - a shared library -> libfko
> - the documentation of the shared library
> - an XS module FKO that allows fwknop-client/server to use the new
> libfko library.
> - the fwknop client written in C
>
> - later maybe a fwknop-c-server
>
> Therefore, I was thinking about such binary packages:
>
> - 1) a shared library libfko0
> - 2) a devel package libfko0-dev
> - 3) a doc package libfko-doc
> - 4) a fwknop-c-client
> - 5) a fwknop-c-server
> - 6) a libspa-fko-perl module
>
> and I was suggesting to split the current fwknop-c tarball in three as
> following:
>
> - one for 1+2+3
> - one for 4+5
> - one for 6
>
> To me it looks reasonable to split it. What do others think?
> Upstream is also insterested in hearing your opinions :)
Please explain why it needs to be split? A single source package
can create as many binary packages as are desired, so the splitting off
the binary packages does not impose any requirements to split the source
package.
manoj
--
Never be afraid to tell the world who you are. Anonymous
Manoj Srivastava <sriva...@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
