Dear Gunnar, On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 07:24:40PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > I originally packaged libprawn-ruby in 2009. When I did it, its > upstream recommended me to keep ttfunk and pdfinspector in sync with > it, as they are not really independent packages and are (or were, at > least) unlikely to be useful by themselves. The sources are not > developed in a single tree nor distributed as a single tarball, and > that's the reason libprawn-ruby has three source tarballs. I decided > not to make it into three separate packages in order not to needlessly > create new, small packages.
> Of course, it's more hassle for maintenance, and there _are_ strong > points towards having a regular, single-tarball package. I'm not > writing this to stop you from splitting the packages, but just to give > you some perspective on my reasoning. Thank you for your comments. I guess that now the point of view of upstream has changed a little bit [0,1]. [0] https://github.com/sandal/prawn/issues/191 [1] https://github.com/sandal/pdf-inspector/blob/master/README (third paragraph) ttfunk as well as pdf-inspector are now distributed as independent gems, and may have an interest independently from libprawn-ruby. As far as ttfunk is concerned, one might think of a font collection manager for instance?. Moreover, this fits particularly well with the new Ruby packaging workflow. I guess that having these packages split is the easiest way to maintain them and to follow upstream. Best regards, Cédric
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
