I hadn't thought of `boost`, but looking at it it seems like a good fit. I'll be using that model for the packages. Thanks for your input guys :) On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 7:13 PM, P. A. López-Valencia <vorbote@outlook.com> wrote:
El 14/02/2016 a las 10:45 p. m., Eric Engeström escribió:
Hi all,
With the release of Vulkan imminent, I thought I'd prepare some packages for Arch so that I can push them the minute it gets released :)
I was thinking of splitting it into 4 packages: - `vulkan-loader` with everything you need to run an app compiled against Vulkan (/usr/lib/libvulkan.so*). This is what Vulkan-apps packages would `depend` on. - `vulkan-headers` with everything you need to build an app for Vulkan (/usr/include/vulkan/* & /usr/lib/pkgconfig/vulkan.pc) (depends on `-loader`) - `vulkan-sdk` with all the debugging and validation stuff from LunarG (/usr/bin/*, /usr/share/vulkan/*) (depends on `-headers` + `-loader`) - `vulkan-manpages` (self-explanatory :P) I've also made `-git` versions of all of those, except the `-sdk`: I can't make it clean enough for a PKGBUILD without heavy patching of upstream's build scripts (I'm hoping somebody fixes that soon enough, I don't have the patience to do it myself :P).
Does this sound reasonable?
Supporting the minimal approach, have you examined boost packaging and naming? boost-libs contains the runtime libraries and the boost package what you would call the SDK, namely all the header, pkgconfig files and whatnot.
-- Pedro A. López-Valencia http://about.me/palopezv/ Recession is when a neighbor loses his job. Depression is when you lose yours. -Ronald Reagan