[pacman-dev] makepkg patch to create $pkgname-docs package for docs
2007/4/28, Travis Willard <travis@archlinux.org>:
There's a problem with stripping stuff needed for build - that "problem" is the AUR. Someone may never expect to need to compile, but then suddenly they realize this really neat or critical app is only available in the AUR - what happens when they set their option to strip away all these files? How do they get them back? This seems like it could be a big hassle.
Neat and/or critical app should ideally be at least in community, not unsupported :) But you could do like in debian, having each lib splitted in foo and foo-dev. Build dep (depends) is foo-dev, which contains the headers and stuff, and runtime dep (makedepends) is foo, which contains only the lib. And yes, it is a big hassle. But if you care about size, it doesn't make sense to ignore that. So people who care should use a distrib that does this split imo. But me, I don't care at all, and want to be able to build packages easily, so I find arch easier to use for that. When you just rebuild a deb, someone already found all the *-dev files for building, so you can install these automatically. But when you want to build a new app, it's often boring to have to track all of them (but worth it, since you only install the -dev packages you need, and don't have a lot of unused ones, which takes a lot of extra space).
On 4/28/07, Xavier <shiningxc@gmail.com> wrote:
Neat and/or critical app should ideally be at least in community, not unsupported :)
Not so easy :) For example, to me are critical (in the sense that I use them frequently) clens/yogi, eclipse-ve, dvdstyler... this doesn't mean other people need them as much as I do and they can be put into community.
But you could do like in debian, having each lib splitted in foo and foo-dev. Build dep (depends) is foo-dev, which contains the headers and stuff, and runtime dep (makedepends) is foo, which contains only the lib. And yes, it is a big hassle. But if you care about size, it doesn't make sense to ignore that.
I thought we cared about KISS =) bardo
2007/4/28, Xavier <shiningxc@gmail.com>:
2007/4/28, Travis Willard <travis@archlinux.org>:
There's a problem with stripping stuff needed for build - that "problem" is the AUR. Someone may never expect to need to compile, but then suddenly they realize this really neat or critical app is only available in the AUR - what happens when they set their option to strip away all these files? How do they get them back? This seems like it could be a big hassle.
Neat and/or critical app should ideally be at least in community, not unsupported :)
But you could do like in debian, having each lib splitted in foo and foo-dev. Build dep (depends) is foo-dev, which contains the headers and stuff, and runtime dep (makedepends) is foo, which contains only the lib. And yes, it is a big hassle. But if you care about size, it doesn't make sense to ignore that. So people who care should use a distrib that does this split imo. But me, I don't care at all, and want to be able to build packages easily, so I find arch easier to use for that. When you just rebuild a deb, someone already found all the *-dev files for building, so you can install these automatically. But when you want to build a new app, it's often boring to have to track all of them (but worth it, since you only install the -dev packages you need, and don't have a lot of unused ones, which takes a lot of extra space).
Yeah, that's what I proposed long time ago, but then stopped after complaints that this will complicate package building (not true IMO), PKGBUILDs (partly true) and confuse users (partlly true). I don't argue about such splitting anymore, anyway that's not so important nor I 100% sure it is good idea. -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)
participants (3)
-
bardo
-
Roman Kyrylych
-
Xavier