gtg team mailing list archive

[Luca Invernizzi <invernizzi.l@xxxxxxxxx>]

Public bug reported:

>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?

** Affects: gtg
     Importance: Undecided
         Status: New

-- 
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!: New

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?