I use the tomboy-latex plugin. The version in the repos is out of date, so I
run the latest version from the author. His install instructions recommend
installing certain packages. What this example makes me realize, in the case of
GTG, is:
* If a plugin is going to be distributed by a package management system (e.g.
in Ubuntu, via the repositories or a PPA), then the packaging can be used to
satisfy the dependencies, OR
* If a plugin is to be manually installed by the user, it is appropriate for
the plugin author to provide some instructions ("Be sure to sudo apt-get
install python-this python-that.")
Unless we can think of a third case, then this would allow getting rid of some
parts of the GTG plugins code. GTG will still have to check that a plugin can
be loaded, but it doesn't have to struggle to provide intelligible instructions
to the user on which packages to install. Instead, plugin dependency failures
can trigger either:
* An apport bug submission with the relevant details (core plugins from
gtg-plugins*) OR
* A preformatted bug report to be sent to the plugin author
(manually-installed plugins)
> gtg-plugins-extras
>From the example of the texlive-* packages, it should be "extra" (not plural).
--
Split plugins in separate packages (in Fedora)
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/591747
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Gtg
contributors, which is subscribed to Getting Things GNOME!.
Status in Getting Things GNOME!: Confirmed
Bug description:
>From bug 493269, by https://edge.launchpad.net/~bochecha
=====================================================
(Disclaimer: I co-maintain GTG in Fedora)
Just for the record, I think this is a packaging issue in Fedora.
I had seen the issue and was planning on fixing it properly in the package by:
1. splitting the plugins into a subpackage
2. making the gtg-plugins package require the necessary Python modules
3. making sure those modules are properly packaged in Fedora
4. eventually, if that's worth it, splitting each plugin in its own subpackage,
each one requiring its own Python dependencies
Like I said, I wanted to do that when I would find the time, and obviously
discuss that with upstream GTG (i.e. you). I don't have the time right now, but
I just found this bug report, so I guess this is a rather good place to open
this discussion.
So what do you think? Does splitting the plugins from the core GTG make sense
from a packaging perspective? Does splitting each plugin in its own subpackage
make sense?
What's your take on this?
PS: I didn't want to reopen the bug as it's a slightly parallel issue and it's
relative to a downstream distributor, should this bug be reopen? Should I open
a new one?
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~gtg-contributors
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~gtg-contributors
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
