Hi Geoffroy: On 11/29/07, Geoffroy Vallee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can only speak about Debian packages but what i did is the following: > base is a virtual package that depends on libs, and scripts (bin). I > also have a oscar-x11 package for the GUI. I plan to create an "oscar" > package which will be a virtual package allowing users to install > everything at once (so only composed by dependencies with other > packages). > So yes, at least for Debian, it makes sense to have a "base" packages. > After that we did not agree on any convention (i tried to start a > discussion on the subject but nobody seemed to be interested), and for > Debian i try to be as close as possible from Debian policies/naming > schemes. > We can also decide that it does not matter to have something consistent > between RPMs and Debian packages. It does not bother me that much -- I'm just wondering why 'base' was necessary. Regarding the naming conventions between RPM and Debian packages -- I would vote to have them as consistent as possible. It makes it easier for users and developers alike to figure things out. P.S. For RPM packaging, I plan to set $OSCAR_HOME = /opt/oscar (or %basedir) after the oscar-base RPM is installed (%postinstall) -- since if you are installing via binary packages, the path is set so might as well set it up after the package installation for the user automatically... Thanks, Bernard ------------------------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 _______________________________________________ Oscar-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oscar-devel
