Mail Archives: geda-user/2015/10/07/02:19:57
On Wed, 7 Oct 2015, DJ Delorie wrote:
>
> Well, my experience is from Fedora, perhaps it has different rules.
>
>> I see no reason why a distro would package glues of different
>> languages into a single big package.
>
> If the concept is "these are pcb's scripting languages" they might
> choose to keep them together for convenience, despite the dynamic
> loader capabilities.
The concept is these are scripting language backends/plugins for libgpmi.
Pcb-rnd merely uses libgpmi. There's no direct connection between pcb and
the scripting languages; libgpmi is a library dependency as much as libpng
is when you chose to compile with the png exporter. I don't expect libgpmi
to be packaged into with pcb-rnd just as libpng is not packaged into pcb -
they are rather 3rd party libs pcb/pcb-rnd depend on.
Debian delivers pcb-gtk and pcb-lesstif as separate packages, but they
both depend on libpng. So Debian users have the option to chose between
the GUIs but can't chose not to have libpng installed (without compiling,
of course).
These are distro policies. If I don't have a strong infra that can
dynamically load things, there are no option to package it in a modular
way. If I do, packagers can decide to do the right thing.
>
>> do you have anything against it?
>
> I'm not trying to discourage you, just mentioning that my experience
> with Fedora leads me to expect an all-or-nothing packaging approach.
>
Well, it's really up to the packager and the distribution. I have much
better experience with the distro I use, so I wouldn't say distros do it
wrong generally.
The upstream software allows for doing it properly. That's the best I can
offer. Then if a distro decides to limit options, it's their choice. I
wouldn't go for a limited upstream implementation just because "distros
will surely ruin it anyway".
- Raw text -