On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Sebastiaan Couwenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > On 06-09-15 13:07, Rashad M wrote:
>> To note that, there is otbice, monteverdi1 and monteverdi2 which uses only >> a part of all otb libs. >> >> For example, see this - >> https://git.orfeo-toolbox.org/ice.git/blob/HEAD:/CMakeLists.txt#l64 Ok - in that case forget my previous comments: I believe we should split the package. >> >> only "OTBImageIO OTBVectorDataIO OTBProjection OTBStatistics" libs are >> considered for Ice. It does not need qtwidget or OTBSupervised and many >> others. So it is better for users to atleast to split qt, commandline, >> core. >> >> Similar is case for monteverdi2 which uses QtWidget but not >> otbApplicationLauncher{CommandLine/Qt} >> >> Having each into separate libs is what modular architecture of OTB is >> about. Well, that is lot of packages in this case and more work for >> packagers tracking every new module > > That's why we use `dh_install --list-missing`, you'll see newly > introduced libraries being built but not installed. That's the trigger > to add new library packages for them. > > The extra work to handle more than one shared library in a package is > neglible over just a signle shared library. Updating the symbols is > still the same two commands commands to update the symbols file(s) (one > or more doesn't make a difference). Since otb uses the release number in the libs, you will have to rename the .install files and you will pass through bin-new for every release. That was the extra workI was talking about. Anyway since there are third party applications I agree we should split. Kind Regards, Johan
