From 1be510f9529cb082f802408b472a77d074b394c0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Nicolas Vigier Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 13:46:12 +0000 Subject: Add zarb MLs html archives --- zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-December/010315.html | 128 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 128 insertions(+) create mode 100644 zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-December/010315.html (limited to 'zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-December/010315.html') diff --git a/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-December/010315.html b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-December/010315.html new file mode 100644 index 000000000..daff77097 --- /dev/null +++ b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-December/010315.html @@ -0,0 +1,128 @@ + + + + [Mageia-dev] Build-in or stand-alone module for X to support Y + + + + + + + + + +

[Mageia-dev] Build-in or stand-alone module for X to support Y

+ Kamil Rytarowski + n54 at gmx.com +
+ Sat Dec 10 14:06:18 CET 2011 +

+
+ +
W dniu 10.12.2011 13:45, Maarten Vanraes pisze:
+> Op zaterdag 10 december 2011 13:12:52 schreef Kamil Rytarowski:
+>> Hello!
+>>
+>> Situation:
+>> A package X may have support for a package Y, by a module as a build in
+>> X or stand-alone package. All modules are possible to turn-on and to
+>> turn-off in a menu of X.
+>>
+>> And there is a discussion because there is no Y at all in Mageia.
+>> Person A says:
+>> - include the module, even if there is no Y in Mageia (and maybe never
+>> will be included), because an end-user can install Y from alternative
+>> source or compile it from sources; and don't add Suggests/Requires for Y
+>> in the package, because it's obvious that this is to support Y; also
+>> installing Y from alternative sources/self-compilation is much simpler
+>> than reinstalling X with support for Y
+>> Person B says:
+>> - don't include the module, because Y is a dependency for the module of
+>> X - and we don't ship broken packages that aren't self-contained; so it
+>> must be excluded from X or the nobody has package Y and maintain it
+>>
+>> Neither A nor B want to work with Y package.
+>>
+>> Who is right?
+> imho, if Y is wanted by some people, and X works more of less fine without Y
+> even if it's support is compiled, and sometimes a get-Y package is fine.
+>
+> imho it's maintainer's preference, if maintainer is fine to also "support the
+> Y-module for X" even if depends on Y and Y is not allowed in mageia, or even
+> if Y is in nonfree... it's fine by me.
+>
+> let's get into specifics:
+>
+Well here there is no nonfree, demo, shareware, license issue. Just Y is 
+yet another media-player. Importing Y is not a case for neiher A nor B.
+There is a question to include or not include a module (as an external 
+package %{name}-module-mediaplayer_Y) for X. X is working perfectly 
+without Y - Y is just adding some extra features. But the module for X 
+is NOT working without Y. Well it's probably not breaking X, there will 
+be an error message "error loading module-mediaplayer_Y".
+
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+

+ +
+More information about the Mageia-dev +mailing list
+ -- cgit v1.2.1