Hi Aaron, I do think that you have a point, however as mentioned in #586256 there seems to be people in the upstream development mailing list suggesting that it should be enabled in general. We did so except for architectures where it would be unreasonable (e.g. armel, hppa, mips...), among other reasons because in some of them it would take a day or more to compile.
Splitting the package would be a reasonable thing to do from the point of view of the package size, but IMO it's not unreasonable for architectures where this is enabled to have packages of this size. CrystalSpace (another 3D engine) occuppies 90MB, perhaps because it's unstripped. On the other hand it's a burden for us packagers to maintain, for example to have the correct linking options in pkg-config files (other than the hypothetical package openscenegraph-osgwrappers would overwrite them). Maybe the rest of the co-mantainers have a different opinion about this, though, if so they will chime in. I think that it could also be confusing for developers using the library if they don't have to install separately osgwrappers in other systems but they have to do it in Debian. As far as we can tell, the next major version of OSG (which is due to be released very soon) won't include osgWrappers upstream, and there are people interested in maintaining the source separately. At that point we can package it separately, and still developers won't be confused (or at least we won't be the ones to blame) because it's upstream who did force the splitting. Does this sound reasonable to you? In the meantime, I will be setting the priority to whishlist, if you don't have any objection, but it will remain open in the case that there's other people wanting to express their opinion. Cheers. -- Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <[email protected]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
