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

Re: Create a -cli package without a different executable



Le Fri, 18 Dec 2009 22:39:18 +0100,
Julian Aloofi <julian fedoralists googlemail com> a écrit :

> Am Freitag, den 18.12.2009, 18:12 +0100 schrieb Nicoleau Fabien:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I'm packaging phatch that provides /usr/bin/phatch, a graphical
> > application to manage some operations on photos. It handles command
> > line parameters so that it can be used in a script, without a GUI :
> > if no parameters are given, a GUI is displayed, otherwise it acts
> > as a console application.
> > 
> > Upstream asked me if it's possible to keep "phatch" package,
> > containing the graphical requirements (and requires) and requires
> > phatch-cli, and create a phatch-cli, that provides /usr/bin/phatch.
> > With this way, people could just install phatch-cli on a server and
> > use it with command line parameters (but it would crash if it's not
> > launched with parameters).
> > 
> > My question is :
> > is it good to provide a -cli package that does not provides a
> > separate script or executable file, and that will work only if the
> > user is carefull to not launch it in a way that it does not require
> > a graphic lib (without parameters in that context) ?
> > 
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Fabien NICOLEAU
> > 
> I see phatch is a python package, so I think a little trick could be
> possible:
> 
> %package cli:
> BuildRequires:	python-devel
> Requires:	non-gui-dependencies
> %files
> {_bindir}/phatch
> 
> and for the main package:
> Requires:	phatch-cli
> Requires:	pygtk2, <gui-dependencies>
> [install desktop file etc...]
> 
> 
> This way users could explicitly install phatch-cli, and it would
> "only" not start up properly if called without arguments on a
> terminal, and the main package (gui version) would contain the
> program and pull in the graphical dependencies.
> I don't know the program though, and if the cli version depends on gui
> libraries to work properly as well it wouldn't work.

Yes, I'll probably use this way :)

thx


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