[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Splitting package xmlto - which way is better?

I would like to ask you about splitting package xmlto.
I got request to split xmlto package to throw away passivetex (and TeX)
requirements in the case of xmlto usage for building txt/html
documentation (rhbz #454341). This change is reasonable, but I'm not
sure which way is better. Generally I have two possibilities:

1) Split to xmlto and xmlto-base - with xmlto Requires: xmlto-base . In
xmlto-base all binaries, documentation and backends without passivetex
requirements. Main package will contain only three backends (fo to
dvi/ps/pdf) after that change. This will not break any builds in Fedora
Rawhide but raises rpmlint warnings about no binary/documentation in
main package.
2) Split to xmlto and xmlto-tex . This will break builds which are using
xmlto for building pdf/ps/dvi documentation - additional BuildRequires
for xmlto-tex backends subpackage will be required. 

Which one should be preferred?

I like the possibility #1 a bit more, although I guess in long-term is
#2 better solution. Any other ideas?

Thanks in advance for reactions.

         Ondrej Vasik

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Toto je digitálně podepsaná část zprávy

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]