On 07/16/2014 03:40 AM, Daniel Vrátil wrote:
On Tuesday 15 of July 2014 21:47:32 Syam Krishnan wrote:
On 07/15/2014 05:39 PM, Daniel Vrátil wrote:
Hi,
speaking with my KDE PIM developer hat on, I think it makes a lot of sense to actually split the package per-app, so we would have
kdepim-akonadiconsole (I'd actually prefer if this was not installed by default, so that people would not be tempted to play with it :P) kdepim-akregator kdepim-blogilo kdepim-kaddressbook kdepim-kjots kdepim-kleopatra kdepim-kmail kdepim-knode kdepim-knotes kdepim-kontact kdepim-korganizer kdepim-libs (libs shared by multiple PIM apps) kdepim-common (?) (shared executables, like incidenceeditor-ng, Akonadi agents, etc)
One suggestion (apologies in advance if I've not understood it correctly). Why "kdepim-*" naming for applications? It might make sense for libraries, but not applications. I think its better to just have kontact, korganizer etc. rather than with "kdepim-" prefix.
I think we had something like this for kate, okteta etc. which was sometimes irritating since one had to yum search for "*kate*" to figure out the package name for installation. Anyway, nowadays, its just kate and okteta, and I'm liking it.
I think that this would require having a spec file for each application, which would make updating and building a big pain, since whole KDE PIM would have to be built every time (please correct me if I'm wrong), because the entire KDE PIM is released as a single tarball. If we want to package these apps as subpackages in the same .spec file, the kdepim prefix cannot be avoided.
No, you can name subpackages whatever you want, e.g.:
%package -n kmail
Note the "-n"