[hipl-dev] Re: binary packaging

  • From: Miika Komu <mkomu@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: hipl-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 19:11:34 +0200

Hi,

On 11/05/2010 06:35 PM, Diego Biurrun wrote:

On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 03:49:36PM +0100, René Hummen wrote:

On 05.11.2010, at 14:53, Diego Biurrun wrote:

On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 07:57:50PM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:

[...]


The single monolithic package idea
does not have many fans, but the current split is too complex.
So how about packages for

- 'common' (including docs and shared libs)


Do we use shared libs? If no, drop them and rename this package to doc.


No, we use static libs by default.  I will remove the libs.


- 'all' (virtual package)

This eliminates the 'minimal', 'lib' 'tools' and 'docs' packages.

The pisacert and nsupdate.pl programs could either go in common or
be left out.  I'm currently unsure how essential they are.


Both only are of interest in combination with hipd. Move them there, please.


Done.

I'm implementing all of this in the 'packaging' branch on launchpad.
so, hipconf and nsupdate.pl are related to hipd, so probably should be in the same package (hipd, as you suggested). Hipdnskeyparse should be in the same package as DNS proxy.
In general, the packages called hipd, hipfw, dnsproxy, common and all sound fine to me. Are you going to prefix them with hipl (note that there's two other HIP implementations)? The current packaging is as follows: 

* hipl-all
* hipl-daemon
* hipl-dnsproxy
* hipl-doc
* hipl-firewall
* hipl-lib
* hipl-tools
Think about if it makes sense to rename hipl-firewall to hipl-fw and so forth.
Anyway, if you don't include the prefix, we would have packages like "hipd", "hipfw" and "hipl". The last one, would not necessarily need the "all" postfix. 

Cheers!

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. hipl-dev
  3. Archive
  4. 11-2010