gtg-contributors team mailing list archive

[Paul Kishimoto <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I use the tomboy-latex plugin. The version in the repos is out of date, so I run the latest version from the author. His install instructions recommend installing certain packages. What this example makes me realize, in the case of GTG, is:
 * If a plugin is going to be distributed by a package management system (e.g. in Ubuntu, via the repositories or a PPA), then the packaging can be used to satisfy the dependencies, OR
 * If a plugin is to be manually installed by the user, it is appropriate for the plugin author to provide some instructions ("Be sure to sudo apt-get install python-this python-that.")

Unless we can think of a third case, then this would allow getting rid of some parts of the GTG plugins code. GTG will still have to check that a plugin can be loaded, but it doesn't have to struggle to provide intelligible instructions to the user on which packages to install. Instead, plugin dependency failures can trigger either:
 * An apport bug submission with the relevant details (core plugins from gtg-plugins*) OR
 * A preformatted bug report to be sent to the plugin author (manually-installed plugins)

> gtg-plugins-extras
>From the example of the texlive-* packages, it should be "extra" (not plural).

-- 
Split plugins in separate packages (in Fedora)
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/591747
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Gtg
contributors, which is subscribed to Getting Things GNOME!.

Status in Getting Things GNOME!: Confirmed

Bug description:
>From bug 493269, by https://edge.launchpad.net/~bochecha
=====================================================

(Disclaimer: I co-maintain GTG in Fedora)

Just for the record, I think this is a packaging issue in Fedora.

I had seen the issue and was planning on fixing it properly in the package by:
1. splitting the plugins into a subpackage
2. making the gtg-plugins package require the necessary Python modules
3. making sure those modules are properly packaged in Fedora
4. eventually, if that's worth it, splitting each plugin in its own subpackage, each one requiring its own Python dependencies

Like I said, I wanted to do that when I would find the time, and obviously discuss that with upstream GTG (i.e. you). I don't have the time right now, but I just found this bug report, so I guess this is a rather good place to open this discussion.

So what do you think? Does splitting the plugins from the core GTG make sense from a packaging perspective? Does splitting each plugin in its own subpackage make sense?

What's your take on this?

PS: I didn't want to reopen the bug as it's a slightly parallel issue and it's relative to a downstream distributor, should this bug be reopen? Should I open a new one?