I think it could make sense that way, sure. The core libraries alone could be all that are needed by apps that have OIIO as a dependency, but the binaries are not all that big or complicated, so it's also not immediately obvious what's to be gained other than saving a few MB. (Another wrinkle: how many of those apps or their users would not, at some point, need to use one or more of the command line utilities?)
So it's a matter of taste. I'd err on the side of following whatever convention is typically used in Fedora for similar packages, if there are any analogous situations. Certainly I wouldn't object if the Fedora style was to break things up in such a way (say, oiio-libs, oiio-utils, oiio-iv, oiio-all). On Oct 9, 2012, at 4:23 PM, Richard Shaw wrote: > Hello again! Been awhile since I've needed to ask a question... > > I recently had a request to package iv separately on Fedora since it's > the only thing that pulls in qt, which I could do, but does it make > more sense the move all the binaries to a OpenImageIO-utils package? > > Thoughts? > > Thanks, > Richard -- Larry Gritz [email protected] _______________________________________________ Oiio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openimageio.org/listinfo.cgi/oiio-dev-openimageio.org
