policy on library packages

[Aurelien Bompard]

Michael Schwendt wrote:

> "can" as in "it's optional"? or "can" as in "there's a strict dependence
> on a digikam library when digikam plugins support is built into the image
> viewer"?

It's a configure switch, so it's strict.

> So, the dependence is automatic (due to a linked library)?

exactly

> Is size a matter here? ;)

In this case, I don't think size is a matter ;o)
The full digikam package weights 2.6Mo


> See also the recent discussion of FLAC, which was not split into
> flac and flac-lib in Fedora Core 2 devel unlike fedora.us.

Yes, it looks like maintaining splitted packages can become a mess. That's
why I asked for advice here.

> IMHO, such changes should be implemented correctly upstream. A clean
> modules system which allows adding/removing features at run-time. However,
> if upstream is focused on source tarballs as opposed to distributions,
> they likely not see a problem and expect everyone to build from source and
> link in only the features that are wanted.

Fortunately, showimg is still in a pre-1.0 development stage. This could be
a nice RFE :)

For now, I'll keep the digikam package whole.

Thanks

Aurélien
-- 
http://gauret.free.fr   ~~~~   Jabber : gauret at amessage.info
"Unix was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that
would also stop you from doing clever things." -- Doug Gwyn