Splitting package xmlto - which way is better?
Ondřej Vašík
ovasik at redhat.com
Mon Jul 14 11:32:10 UTC 2008
Hello,
I would like to ask you about splitting package xmlto.
I got request to split xmlto package to throw away passivetex (and TeX)
requirements in the case of xmlto usage for building txt/html
documentation (rhbz #454341). This change is reasonable, but I'm not
sure which way is better. Generally I have two possibilities:
1) Split to xmlto and xmlto-base - with xmlto Requires: xmlto-base . In
xmlto-base all binaries, documentation and backends without passivetex
requirements. Main package will contain only three backends (fo to
dvi/ps/pdf) after that change. This will not break any builds in Fedora
Rawhide but raises rpmlint warnings about no binary/documentation in
main package.
2) Split to xmlto and xmlto-tex . This will break builds which are using
xmlto for building pdf/ps/dvi documentation - additional BuildRequires
for xmlto-tex backends subpackage will be required.
Which one should be preferred?
I like the possibility #1 a bit more, although I guess in long-term is
#2 better solution. Any other ideas?
Thanks in advance for reactions.
Greetings,
Ondrej Vasik
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Toto je digit?ln? podepsan? ??st zpr?vy
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20080714/edb03895/attachment.sig>
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list