gtg team mailing list archive

[Luca Falavigna <dktrkranz@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Speaking with my Debian/Ubuntu package maintainer hat on, I didn't pay
too much attention to plugins required dependencies, say because it's
clearly stated by gtg itself, say because some plugins are of little
interest, and it's not worth the pain adding to Recommends full stack of
required Python packages.

I must admit that it's not the preferred way to do this, because users
expect gtg to work out of the box immediately, leaving apt/dpkg the task
of installing dependencies, and this never happened since now. I can't
blame users for reporting bugs, and "fixing" them by adding packages to
Recommends falls into the first behaviour, which I want to avoid.

The best solution to me is having separate packages for plugins (a
single package for mostly used ones, and a gtg-plugins-others for niche
ones) on top of gtg sources, so we avoid of publishing two separate
source tarballs. In Debian/Ubuntu this is easily doable, I don't know
about Fedora.

-- 
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?