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

[Kamil Rytarowski]

W dniu 10.12.2011 14:11, Maarten Vanraes pisze:
> Op zaterdag 10 december 2011 14:06:18 schreef Kamil Rytarowski:
>> 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".
> you could find a way to configure it as disabled?
Yes
>   or move it to a subdir of sorts with a mention that if they do have Y that
> they can put this file in the other dir.
>
> or... have a subpackage for this module and don't suggest it. plus have a
> warning in it to say that it requires bla.
>
> so my vote is for A)
I like the idea with URPMI warning at the install time, this would solve 
the problem. "If you need Y support for X, we include the module, but 
obtain Y at your own."