Oh, also, my thoughts on splitting spirv-tools were that it didn't need
splitting, as the whole package is a "-dev" package in itself. I.e. even
though it produces libraries, executables, and headers, they're all part of
the same package, they're all only used for development, and don't really
need to be separated. YMMV though, and the /bin executables could easily
be split into their own package if you think that's cleaner. Builddep for
glslang and libvulkan would depend on both packages though.
On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 9:07 AM, Timo Aaltonen <tjaal...@debian.org> wrote:
> On 26.02.2018 21:50, Brett Johnson wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 12:25 PM, Timo Aaltonen <tjaal...@debian.org>
> >> just wondering (again) if glslang should be
> >> packaged separately or not. Because now would be the time to do it.
> > FWIW, after digging further down this rabbit hole, I think you made
> > the right call by not wanting to package them in the same source
> > package as libvulkan. The upstream maintainer has agreed to start
> > versioning/tagging the glslang repository, so that makes it much more
> > sensible to package it separately. And there are people who want/use
> > glslang for OpenGL/OpenCL who have nothing to do with vulkan, so it
> > really should be independent anyway.
> I've pushed spirv-headers, -tools and glslang here:
> spirv-headers was uploaded already, but -tools needs some bikeshedding
> on how to split it, and glslang obviously needs this information for