[aur-general] package for the gui of mkvmerge from mkvtoolnix (mmg)
stefan-husmann at t-online.de
Mon Jun 20 19:41:51 EDT 2011
Am 19.06.2011 18:56, schrieb Uli Armbruster:
> Hi guys
> Since the PKGBUILD of mkvtoolnix now has the additional option --disable-gui, I want to create a package in the AUR which provides this gui, which is called mmg (MkvMergeGui).
> Right now I have it up here https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=49992 but I'm not sure about some things:
> - Is it good or bad to only provide mmg (and its manpage, desktop file and icons of course) in the package and add mkvtoolnix as a dependency, because mmg depends on mkvmerge (which is in mkvtoolnix)? You see in the comments, that others want me to make a package, which provides all the mkvtoolnix package contains PLUS mmg => they want a package which is exactly like that one which has been in the repos until recently.
> In my opinion it makes more sense to make this package depending on mkvtoolnix, for some reasons:
> - People don't have to compile everything, the build process is faster and packages depending on mkvtoolnix remain dependent on an official package, which is always recommended in my opinion.
> - It's possible to install the gui for mkvmerge AND / OR the gui for mkvinfo (which I want to upload to the AUR as well later today or tomorrow). If I provide everything in that package, that's not possible, except of course if I create 3 packages, one which includes the one gui, one which includes the other gui and one which includes both guis (the fourth possibility, no gui, is already in the repos). So the way I want to do it makes more sense, right?
> - I'm struggling with the naming of the package. Right now I called it mkvtoolnix-gtk, because for some reason I thought, that in mkvtoolnix's source there's one gtk gui for mkvmerge and a qt gui for mkvmerge. But that's wrong, there's the gtk gui for mkvmerge and a qt gui for mkvinfo. So right now I'd say, I name mkvmerge's gui mkvmerge-gui or mmg and mkvinfo's gui mkvinfo-gui or whatever the executable is called. I think that makes more sense. Do you agree?
> So what I'm asking is, what would you recommend? I'd like to make the package(s) as good as possible for all Arch users, not just for me. So if my approach makes no sense to you guys, I'll bow to the majority and change it (or let someone else take care of it ;D )
Keep it as it is. You already explained the reasons.
More information about the aur-general