Nikolaus Schulz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Upstream has provided about half a dozen, separate utility packages, and > at least two link against the said libraries. One could argue if these > packages *should* be separate, but they are. So I guess the libraries > aren't private package-wise, and this isn't possible, right?
While with non-free software you can't really change the binaries, you definitely *can* change the packaging structure however you'd like. Does it make sense to have six different packages? Or is this really one thing that should be shipped as a single package? > Also, it would be nice to package the libraries separately, since this > allows to have as much of the GPL licenced code[1] go into contrib, and > only the libs themselves go into non-free. But this runs into the > shlibs problem... Eh, I can see why this would be nice but I don't think it's a particularly important feature. There isn't that much difference between contrib and non-free in practice. > I suspect there is no clean solution here; but I wonder what's best. > What do you think? I'm not sure I understand the situation well enough to really recommend something. How big are each of these packages? -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
