Sebastian H. wrote:
> >>> Why regroup qasmixer and qasconfig into one package? Wouldn't it be
> >>> better having them Recommend each other? It doesn't seem like an
> >>> improvement forcing users to install both tools instead of giving them
> >>> the choice. But maybe I'm missing something.
> >>
> >> The short answer is, it makes package maintenance much easier and
> >> is less error prone.
> >
> > I see the point of having one source package for all the tools, but you
> > could still make several binary packages from there (as alsa-tools does,
> > though not for every single utility I must admit).
>
> I've thought about multiple packages, too.
> A setup like this should work:
> qastools-common - Shared stuff ( l10n, etc. )
> qastools-qasconfig - Config app
> qastools-qashctl - HCTL Mixer app
> qastools-qasmixer - Mixer app
>
> That would require a patch to the root CMakelists.txt for each package
> but it should be a trivial. The esscence there is:
>
> ADD_SUBDIRECTORY ( i18n )
> ADD_SUBDIRECTORY ( qasconfig )
> ADD_SUBDIRECTORY ( qashctl )
> ADD_SUBDIRECTORY ( qasmixer )
>
> Three of the four would have be commented out for each package.
> Thinking about it this looks better to me than the collection package.
> Do you think this is a reasonable setup?
I haven't looked into the details, but I don't think you need to patch
your CMakelists.txt at all. Simply use debian/${package}.install files
to tell debhelper which files belong to which binary package (see
dh_install(1)).
--
Benoît Knecht
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111213165957.ge2...@marvin.lan
