On Sat, Jun 25, 2005 at 02:43:28PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote: > > > 1) foo and foo-data. There is usualy no reason for foo-data to depend on > > foo. foo-data does not provide user-visible interface, only data, so it > > does not need to depend on foo. > > However, we have some users randomly filing bugs on > foo-data that doesn't get uninstalled if it's no longer useful.
Fix the users, then! > > 2) libfoo and foo-bin, where foo-bin include binaries linked with > > libfoo. Usually libfoo only need to Depends on configuration data > > in foo-bin and not on any binaries linked with libfoo (to avoid infinite > > recursion). In that case it should be possible to split foo-bin in > > foo-bin and foo-common, and change libfoo to depend on foo-common > > instead. > > I'm rather doubtful it should be easy to fix this situation. > I doubt having configuration data in foo-bin is a good idea, > since it will generally cause problems when > libfoo1/libfoo2 needs to coexist. If it is not a good idea, all the more reason to introduce foo-common ? Cheers, -- Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
