My advice would be to make two packages: openimageio for the libraries, dev materials (headers and docs), and command line utilities (not iv; no Qt dependency)
openimageio-iv for just iv (dependent on openimageio and Qt) On Nov 14, 2012, at 11:12 AM, Richard Shaw wrote: > 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 -- Larry Gritz [email protected]
_______________________________________________ Oiio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openimageio.org/listinfo.cgi/oiio-dev-openimageio.org
