On Wed, 2008-06-11 at 09:50 +0100, Matt Keenan wrote: > > If libsexy has already been ARC'd then the package name should have > already been > registered. Therefore I'd leave it in it's own package.
libsexy has already been ARC'd so I guess the package name has already been registered. Putting many libaries into one packages will redcuce the number of spec files but will increase the build time and the difficaulty of updating a single library. Leaving the library alone will introduce complicated dependency and we have to maintain more spec files. ???Do we have any policy to handle this situation? Regards, Jedy > > If the package name has not been registered yet, then including it in > SUNWgnome-panel > is fine, but I'm guessing this would be seen as a new interface for > SUNWgnome-panel > package, and would need to be mentioned quoting the original libsexy > arc case in the > GNOME 2.24 arc materials. > > Although at the end of the day, my preference would be to leave it on > it's own, I'm > not a fan of bundling loads of libraries into single packages, I'd > much prefer if they > were out on their own..... > > Matt > > > Jedy Wang wrote: > > > On Tue, 2008-06-10 at 11:45 -0500, Brian Cameron wrote: > > > > > Jedy: > > > > > > >>> - Now that we have a complete list of packages, ie.e. same as the > > > >>> rest > > > >>> of the community, should we use a separate package name instead of > > > >>> tagging onto gnome-panel? > > > >> If I remember correctly, the GNOME community has been talking about > > > >> eventually merging libsexy into GTK+ or some other base library. > > > >> If libsexy will be a temporary library, it probably makes more > > > >> sense to "hide" it in a package like the panel or base-libs > > > >> package rather than making it more visible with a separate > > > >> package. Just my opinion, though. > > > > > > > > Yes, there is a bug filed against this in bugzilla > > > > (http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=508810). But I do not know > > > > when will this be accomplished. If we can convince that it will go into > > > > gtk in 1 or 2 GNOME release, we can just leave it alone. But if this > > > > will take a real long time(such as 2 or 3 years), then it would be a > > > > good idea to make a seperated package. IMPO, I think we put too many > > > > applications/libraries in one signle package. > > > > > > If the long-term plan is for libsexy to go away, then I think it makes > > > more sense for it to be integrated into an existing package. Why > > > add new packages and remove them in a few builds? > > > > > > > Hi Brian, > > > > I had considered to put libnoitfy/notification-daemon in > > SUNWgnome-base-libs but libnotify/notification-daemon depends on > > wnck which is in SUNWgnome-panel. So if we want to put > > libnotify/notification-daemon into an existing package, > > SUNWgnome-panel is the best choice. > > > > Regards, > > > > Jedy > > > > > Brian > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/jds-review/attachments/20080611/e060af78/attachment.html>
