Florent Rougon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Splitting the docs when it doessn't have to happen, it not useful. > > > > It depends. Don't do it gratuitously, but it's worth doing if the docs > > are large. > > OK, I am packaging a small Python extension (PyXMMS, the Debian package > being called python-xmms) whose documentation, although complete, is > therefore small. > > Following indications of the Python policy draft, I intend to generate > the following binary packges : > - python-xmms-common, containing the license and documentation for PyXMMS > - python2.1-xmms, containing the binaries compiled against python 2.1 > + depends on python-xmms-common (and others) > + /usr/share/doc/python2.1-xmms is a symlink pointing to > /usr/share/doc/python-xmms-common > - python2.2-xmms, similar to python2.1-xmms, compiled for Python 2.2 > - python-xmms, containing nothing > + depends on python2.1-xmms as long as python2.1 is Debian default > Python package > + depends on python-xmms-common > + /usr/share/doc/python-xmms is a symlink pointing to > /usr/share/doc/python-xmms-common > > Do you think it is overkill? Do you have something better to suggest? > Thanks for your feedback.
It's probably overkill. If users are likely to install EITHER python2.1-xmms or python2.2-xmms but not both, then repeat the docs in each and forget about python-xmms-common (the license needs to be in every binary package anyway). At that point, python-xmms is probably overkill too. Peter -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
