Martin Bochnig wrote:
> Hi, I personally agree with Darren´s objections.
> This split-up was too excessive.
A single x11-clients package containing all the clients is too big.
Individual packages for clients may be too small.
What would be a useful middle ground?
Telling me I'm wrong doesn't help unless people have suggestions for
what would be better.
Also, one of the reasons I had originally planned to just follow
the upstream split is that's the granularity of the versioning and
releases upstream.
For instance, I could easily see combining these:
x11/diagnostic/xdpyinfo app/xdpyinfo
x11/diagnostic/xdriinfo app/xdriinfo
x11/diagnostic/xvinfo app/xvinfo
x11/diagnostic/xwininfo app/xwininfo
into something like x11/diagnostic/x11-info-clients, but that
package would currently contain these upstream releases:
xdpyinfo 1.1.0
xdriinfo 1.0.3
xvinfo 1.1.0
xwininfo 1.0.5
What version should I use on the IPS package if we're trying to
track upstream package versions in the IPS package versions?
And if we ever get to the model some have discussed of just delivering
packages when there are updates (much like most RPM-based distros),
how big of a package do you want to see updated when there's a single
client program changed?
--
-Alan Coopersmith- [email protected]
Oracle Solaris Platform Engineering: X Window System
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
