Just getting back to this! On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 11:31 PM, Larry Gritz <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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?) > The space savings isn't from oiio itself, but iv brings in QT requirements that may not already be installed. > 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). Both subpackages or completely different package names are acceptable/supported. My first inclination is to do a oiio-utils for the CLI utilities but I'm on the fence on if I want to do a iv subpackage or if I should just create a whole new packages just called "iv". Richard
_______________________________________________ Oiio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openimageio.org/listinfo.cgi/oiio-dev-openimageio.org
