>>>>> 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)).
That's looks even easier.
But together with the manpage fixes I think reasonable to do a 0.16.1
release. It can also introduce build arguments to cmake which tells it
which applications to build. That way no debian/* quirks should be
neccessary. Please considers this RFS frozen until then.
Regards,
Sebastian
--
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/4ee78996.2030...@gmx.de
